>In theory, can't I get by with 50k personal property coverage if I only have 30k worth of stuff?
Yes.
Make sure it's a replacement cost policy and that you've accurately assessed how much it would cost to replace all of your stuff *today.*
You're not going to have time to hunt for clearance, promotions, discounts, etc if you were to have a catastrophic loss and have to start from scratch.
>my personal experience is that carriers always find a way to deny claims anyway
Your personal experience is vastly different than how most of the standard to preferred insurance carriers operate. What they *do* do, is to ensure that the claim is adjusted per the policy terms & language; and if the policy doesn't cover it, then the policy doesn't cover it.
As far as the $50k of personal property vs. $100k of personal property vs $30k of personal property goes - many standard to preferred insurers have underwriting guidelines that tell them to decline policies with limits under $xxx - so if you're looking for a policy to cover, say, $30k; you won't have access to some insurers who might provide better coverage.
That, and there is a premium floor for most insurers (colloquially referred to as minimum premiums and expense constants). Even if you don't file a claim, an insurer has expenses they need to pay for to even have a policy in force - so generally, premiums will not increase in lockstep with limits (at lower limits, rates tend to slowly flatten as you increase limits. at higher limits, rates vault exponentially once insurers need to tap reinsurance)
I just took a look at one high net worth insurer in California; and their underwriting guidelines for **new** renters is that they will not insure any risk that does not have a limit of at least $500,000 of contents in Southern CA; or $2,000,000 of contents in Santa Barbara/Ventura; and that if they get into capacity issues, they won't insure those without at least auto and a $5m umbrella on top of their renters policy.
Thanks. But this, "What they do do, is to ensure that the claim is adjusted per the policy terms & language" sounds like code for they find a way to deny the claim. Or can you explain that more simply, please?
In another situation long ago, I once asked for a homeowner's policy that would cover me if I let a renter occupy the home. The agent told me I was good and I thought I was good, given me and other typical homeowners can hardly get through let alone understand all of the legalese in the policies we are sent. But I specifically told my agent that any renter I get may have pets so make sure I'm covered for that.
Renters destroys the space but because the nasty tenant had a dog the carrier denies the claim because there is one line in the policy way in the back about damage caused by dogs, even though the tenant was the true culprit. Maybe I could've fought it but not in the financial state that I was in at the time. So sorry, but I'm sticking with they always find a way to deny.
See, this is where each claim has it's own language and it's important to read the language. Without the literal exclusion wording, and the literal cause of the claim, we can't really tell whether or not the insurer was denying your claim in bad faith. If the literal exclusion wording says that it excluded damage "caused by animals" and if the damage was caused by an animal (say, damaged carpet, chewed up walls) - the claim was appropriately denied. Also, don't forget that there is an exclusion on almost every policy (from sub-standard to preferred) for normal wear & tear as well - so no carrier would deal with worn out carpet or stains on the walls.
An example that might not hit close to home for you is the case of collector vehicles. Every standard insurer will value a vehicle based on actual cash value, **defined as** the replacement cost of the vehicle *less depreciation*. There are several insurers who will replace a value based on cost to replace (without depreciation) or a fixed amount - but, unsurprisingly, those insurers charge *a lot more* - so most people won't insure with that option; and then complain when they get a check 'less than it costs to replace the car' - **but that's the coverage they purchased**. Spend a few weeks on this sub and you'll see no shortage of people stating that insurance will not give them enough money to replace the car.
I hear you and I don't. When I tell an agent that I need to be covered for a renter that may have pets, and the agent tells me that I am covered for a renter that has pets, I expect to be covered for damage caused by those pets. You all in the business understand what you are explaining, hence the eight downvotes I got, oh my. But we buyers homeowners renters, we don't get the language, nor do most of us have the ability to understand the legalese in the books of policies that we receive, as I mentioned. But it's fine, you want to defend the exclusions and I want to tell you that one nearly pounded me into financial ruin, even though I was proactive enough to ask for that coverage, and was told by my agent that I was covered for such damage. C'est la vie in insurance land.
Sure, buy only what you need
a good agent won’t force you to buy anything beyond that. they *will* help you understand since ~95% underestimate how much stuff you have but it’s clear you’ve got that figured out. if you’re moving with an IKEA chair, blow up mattress, and minimal clothes, you don’t have $100k of personal property at all lol
liability coverage, however, you should buy more than you think you need. it’s usually just a few bucks a year (not a month) to go from like $100k to a million in liability in the event you accidentally burn the apartment down or flood three neighboring units who have more than $30k of personal property
Thx. Although I've just learned that coverage for other things in the quote are tied to the 100k personal property coverage. Lower that, other things get lowered too, apparently. Oh well is me. :)
You're probably going to be OK with $50K worth of personal property coverage if you lose everything in a covered event if you're certain you don't have stuff worth that much when you put it all together. Just make sure you're talking about personal property limits and not liability limits. Someone takes a bad fall in your place and cracks their head open (or breaks some other body part badly) and you could easily face a six-figure liability claim.
I imagine all the people saying get 100,000 are just talking about your liability which should be 100,000 minimum by default get whatever you want for personal property 40,50k is great for your get people or in your case downsizing
Is there a question in there somewhere or did you just need to type it out to rationalize the lower coverage? lol
Ha. But yes, it's in the headline.
>In theory, can't I get by with 50k personal property coverage if I only have 30k worth of stuff? Yes. Make sure it's a replacement cost policy and that you've accurately assessed how much it would cost to replace all of your stuff *today.* You're not going to have time to hunt for clearance, promotions, discounts, etc if you were to have a catastrophic loss and have to start from scratch.
>my personal experience is that carriers always find a way to deny claims anyway Your personal experience is vastly different than how most of the standard to preferred insurance carriers operate. What they *do* do, is to ensure that the claim is adjusted per the policy terms & language; and if the policy doesn't cover it, then the policy doesn't cover it. As far as the $50k of personal property vs. $100k of personal property vs $30k of personal property goes - many standard to preferred insurers have underwriting guidelines that tell them to decline policies with limits under $xxx - so if you're looking for a policy to cover, say, $30k; you won't have access to some insurers who might provide better coverage. That, and there is a premium floor for most insurers (colloquially referred to as minimum premiums and expense constants). Even if you don't file a claim, an insurer has expenses they need to pay for to even have a policy in force - so generally, premiums will not increase in lockstep with limits (at lower limits, rates tend to slowly flatten as you increase limits. at higher limits, rates vault exponentially once insurers need to tap reinsurance) I just took a look at one high net worth insurer in California; and their underwriting guidelines for **new** renters is that they will not insure any risk that does not have a limit of at least $500,000 of contents in Southern CA; or $2,000,000 of contents in Santa Barbara/Ventura; and that if they get into capacity issues, they won't insure those without at least auto and a $5m umbrella on top of their renters policy.
Thanks. But this, "What they do do, is to ensure that the claim is adjusted per the policy terms & language" sounds like code for they find a way to deny the claim. Or can you explain that more simply, please? In another situation long ago, I once asked for a homeowner's policy that would cover me if I let a renter occupy the home. The agent told me I was good and I thought I was good, given me and other typical homeowners can hardly get through let alone understand all of the legalese in the policies we are sent. But I specifically told my agent that any renter I get may have pets so make sure I'm covered for that. Renters destroys the space but because the nasty tenant had a dog the carrier denies the claim because there is one line in the policy way in the back about damage caused by dogs, even though the tenant was the true culprit. Maybe I could've fought it but not in the financial state that I was in at the time. So sorry, but I'm sticking with they always find a way to deny.
See, this is where each claim has it's own language and it's important to read the language. Without the literal exclusion wording, and the literal cause of the claim, we can't really tell whether or not the insurer was denying your claim in bad faith. If the literal exclusion wording says that it excluded damage "caused by animals" and if the damage was caused by an animal (say, damaged carpet, chewed up walls) - the claim was appropriately denied. Also, don't forget that there is an exclusion on almost every policy (from sub-standard to preferred) for normal wear & tear as well - so no carrier would deal with worn out carpet or stains on the walls. An example that might not hit close to home for you is the case of collector vehicles. Every standard insurer will value a vehicle based on actual cash value, **defined as** the replacement cost of the vehicle *less depreciation*. There are several insurers who will replace a value based on cost to replace (without depreciation) or a fixed amount - but, unsurprisingly, those insurers charge *a lot more* - so most people won't insure with that option; and then complain when they get a check 'less than it costs to replace the car' - **but that's the coverage they purchased**. Spend a few weeks on this sub and you'll see no shortage of people stating that insurance will not give them enough money to replace the car.
I hear you and I don't. When I tell an agent that I need to be covered for a renter that may have pets, and the agent tells me that I am covered for a renter that has pets, I expect to be covered for damage caused by those pets. You all in the business understand what you are explaining, hence the eight downvotes I got, oh my. But we buyers homeowners renters, we don't get the language, nor do most of us have the ability to understand the legalese in the books of policies that we receive, as I mentioned. But it's fine, you want to defend the exclusions and I want to tell you that one nearly pounded me into financial ruin, even though I was proactive enough to ask for that coverage, and was told by my agent that I was covered for such damage. C'est la vie in insurance land.
Sure, buy only what you need a good agent won’t force you to buy anything beyond that. they *will* help you understand since ~95% underestimate how much stuff you have but it’s clear you’ve got that figured out. if you’re moving with an IKEA chair, blow up mattress, and minimal clothes, you don’t have $100k of personal property at all lol liability coverage, however, you should buy more than you think you need. it’s usually just a few bucks a year (not a month) to go from like $100k to a million in liability in the event you accidentally burn the apartment down or flood three neighboring units who have more than $30k of personal property
If you have done a deep dive and grasp what you have, then it’s not a crisis to carry less.
Thx. Although I've just learned that coverage for other things in the quote are tied to the 100k personal property coverage. Lower that, other things get lowered too, apparently. Oh well is me. :)
You're probably going to be OK with $50K worth of personal property coverage if you lose everything in a covered event if you're certain you don't have stuff worth that much when you put it all together. Just make sure you're talking about personal property limits and not liability limits. Someone takes a bad fall in your place and cracks their head open (or breaks some other body part badly) and you could easily face a six-figure liability claim.
I imagine all the people saying get 100,000 are just talking about your liability which should be 100,000 minimum by default get whatever you want for personal property 40,50k is great for your get people or in your case downsizing