Interesting point. Could be spun both ways in court, most likely. Does a loss of power count as a “mechanical breakdown”? Probably not, although the insurance company would have to be a real ass to take this route I think.
Depending on the insurer and dollar value there are certain criteria for insurance.
If the dollar value is high enough they may send someone to inspect the cellar, security, and climate control.
My policy covers heat damage with some exclusions which I don’t care about because the maximum summer temperature in my storage space without any active cooling is 61F.
As with all things related to home insurance, the devil is in the details (or lack thereof). Standard home insurance at the level of State Farm comes with limited insurance on personal property, both in aggregate for type of property and per item. What’s more, wine is often just not mentioned as a type of personal property. So it’s entirely unclear what would happen in case of loss or damage if I just had home insurance on the order of SF.
This vagueness, low limits on personal property items, and experience with how adjusters turn vague clauses into claim denial, has led me to take out collectible insurance and get homeowners insurance from a company with a reputation for making claims less painful. There’s good reason behind the many people here paying a premium for insurance on the order of Chubb’s offerings.
Aside from wine I have other items in my home like artwork that I want to insure. For wine, the blanket collectibles coverage therefore works for me. I’m saying this as a homeowner who put some thought into it before settling on insurance that I’m relatively comfortable with.
That is simply not true for State Farm’s , nor any of the other homeowners policy I’ve read. Serious disinformation, no per item limit in the homeowners policy (not talking about a collectibles schedule endorsement, but the policy without endorsement).
Please provide an excerpt policy language otherwise.
Which of my points do you think aren’t true? That SF and similar don’t explicitly cover wine in standard homeowner’s policies? Then show that it is covered. That there are limits in aggregate and per item? Then show that there aren’t. That insurance adjusters can be hard to work with? No need to try to prove anything here, I’m talking about my personal experience.
For the third time, I’m speaking as a homeowner with a burgeoning wine collection. I don’t claim insurance expertise whereas you seem to. If you demonstrate that my understanding is wrong, I’ll learn something new. My interest in this topic is finite.
For the third time, you are completely incorrect that there is a per item sublimit on replacement value in a standard homeowners policy,except as noted in the Special Limits on Liability section, where you find limits on jewelry, art, etc.
Yes wine is not explicitly mentioned. Neither is furniture. I suppose you don’t think you have coverage for your tv or couch as those aren’t specifically mentioned either. You don’t need it to be specially mentioned to have it covered for fire/theft.
I think Chubb is probably the best claim paying company on personal lines first party claims. And for many, it makes sense to insure for more perils, and not have it subject to the overall aggregate limit.
I’m not going to post my entire policy (only way to show line item sublimits for wine don’t exist). Nor my email from my agent confirming my interpretation. But please stick to facts, and not disinformation.
It’s not that wine bottles or any other personal property aren’t covered, the problem with most homeowners policies is that things like mysterious disappearance or flood are excluded. Also it won’t cover items in transit or stored at an offsite. And the value that they’ll pay out is variable and they often try to stick you with depreciation or other excuses to pay lower than the true value of the collection.
Mostly true, but your homeowners policy should cover belongings offsite for fire/theft, perhaps subject to a sublimit (not in transit),
The argument about lowballing is more of a company specific issue applicable to all losses, not just wine (I’ve had scheduled jewelry not pay at scheduled amount because price of gold dropped - lost in small claims court). However, while the initial check (for anything) will be Actual Cash Value, which includes depreciation if you replace, no depreciation (not saying a really high value wine would not be subject to discussion, especially if replacing it with another bottle of a different vintage, but that’s also an issue with designer clothing).
Agree that Chubb is probably the best for that for all first party Homeowner Losses, including wine.
Insurers writing in SoCal are few, so I don’t have a lot of choice.
You telling me that SF explicitly covers wine does not meet the bar for demonstrating that it’s the case.
I did a couple of minutes of sleuthing just now to see if SF explicitly includes wine in their standard homeowner’s insurance. Couldn’t find any evidence from SF on the WWW. But I did find numerous sites that say that wine is not explicitly included in most mid tier insurance, including here. On the other hand, I did find explicit inclusion of furniture in SF homeowner’s insurance. When an item is not explicitly included, then it falls to an adjuster to approve the claim and my experience with SF adjusters is not the best.
From my memory of insurance shopping, I could not get an agent to state in writing that my wine collection with the usual mid tier players (SF, Allstate, etc.) would be included. That, along with ease of post claim disbursement records took me to Chubb and Pure. I ultimately chose the latter with a collectibles rider.
My last post on this.
Thank goodness; you consistently misquote me, it’s tiresome. I said in my prior post it isn’t explicitly covered. It a form of personal property, which is explicitly covered.
What you link to isn’t the policy, it’s marketing material. But it does explicitly state that movable personal property is covered (which includes wine). I don’t think you will find “furniture, appliances” explicitly mentioned in the policy.
Whether or not it’s explicitly mentioned, an adjuster has to approve the claim. True whether scheduled or not. True whether wine or a TV. Reasons for denial would be explicit exclusions (like business property) or because the loss was caused by a non-covered peril (such as flood). There isn’t a reason for not covering movable personal property that isn’t specifically excluded, not subject to a sublimit, and caused by a covered peril.
You are the only one in this thread who said your personal wine stored at your house isn’t covered for fire or theft, and would be denied by the adjuster because it is not explicitly mentioned. And no-one here agrees with you on that.
After reading this about a pretty straightforward claim, I can only imagine the horror that a $50k+ wine collection would add without a specific policy.
NYT: One Fire, Two Burned Homes and Wildly Different Insurance Outcomes
I think the difference wouldn’t be the specific policy, but the fact that the policy is with Chubb.
Schedule endorsements can also pay out less than the stated amount if they feel it’s inflated.
Those jewelry stores that sell things at one price and say they will give you an appraisal for 3x the price is why. You might think that’s wrong, since you are paying a premium based on the insured amount. I thought it was wrong too, but lost in small claims court (many years ago). The Jewelry was scheduled backed up by appraisals…
I’m definitely not saying State Farm is or is not easy to work with on significant claims (easy on the one minor auto claim) but discussing their coverage as a matter of law.
Here’s JD Power’s ranking of claimant customer satisfaction for homeowners insurers. Not endorsing their survey, but seemed a little better than Reddit.
Barry, thanks for all your posts here. Your posts and my own review of my policy docs confirm my belief that the wine is covered under the contents limit for things like fire, theft, earthquake that I buy insurance for. My contents limit is high enough, and my other contents not valuable enough (no art collection here), that I should be good there. I’ve also confirmed that the “perishable” sub-limit only applies if the claim is for loss of refrigeration due to power outage (my cellar is below grade and should stay cool enough so I don’t insure against this, but I might if I had all my wine in a cooling unit in a garage in Phoenix, or something like that).
Not having it scheduled and not having a separate policy means I’m not covered for a lot of low-quantity losses like dropping a bottle (or they would be below my deductible anyway). But if the house burns down my contents coverage should be sufficient.
“The program called for adjusters to reduce “slippage,” “leakage” and “shortfall” — terms that denoted the difference between what was paid on a claim and the lesser amount that the insurer could have paid, according to Mr. Strzelec.”
Can’t say I’m surprised. State Farm is at the center of so many insurance horror stories I’ve read across the Internet in so many categories – auto, home, etc. How does a business executive sleep at night knowing he’s paying an army of consultants a fortune to do this to ordinary people?
You are welcome DD!
Andrew correctly pointed out flood as not being a covered peril. I mention it because mudslide (aka “liquified earth”) isn’t covered by HO policy but by flood insurance. In my prior home, I bought flood insurance even though I was on a hill well above any possible flood levels.
1 Like
Again, while not defending State Farm, they are by far the biggest, so have the biggest numbers of complaints. I’m guessing they are ten times bigger than Chubb in personal lines. Not sure they would be near the top at all if measured per policy.
Here’s a JD Power ranking of claimant customer satisfaction for homeowners. I don’t know how solid the survey is, but better than anecdotes . It would be interesting to see one for California only given how many total homes lost over the last few years.
Regarding the article, contents were valued at replacement cost (which was stated in the article as $326k), the depreciated value (i.e., Actual Cash Value) could easily have been a little more than half depending on the age of the stuff. The full amount isn’t paid unless replaced. That is per the contract (policy). The other homeowner could have been underinsured at $326k, and easy to justify the payout, while the other didn’t really have $326k in contents. Just not enough info in the article for an insurance expert to opine, just one side of things are being reported, and not from a knowledgeable perspective.
That being said, I know some carriers are quicker to payout the full amount than others when there is a total loss. I had to go through the spreadsheet approach, argue on valuation, and replace things before I was made whole on a $40k smoke damage claim. But I was.
I’m guessing pretty much all insurance carriers measure “leakage”. McKinsey went around to all the insurance companies. Typical leakage was not applying the deductible, duplicate payments, and other things OTHER than lowballing. I was involved in measuring leakage at one employer. It was never “you could get away with less”. We had to be very careful, as intentionally lowballing is called Bad Faith (at least in California).
An example of the conseuqences of bad faith would be you are liable in an auto crash for a $10m claim, you limits are $2 million, but you try and save on the $2 million when it’s obvious that the claim is worth more. If that happens, then they carrier may become liable for the full $10m. Not saying the bad faith doesn’t happen, it does - but there are plenty of lawyers willing to take on the case for a contingency. Here’s a reasonable discussion:
If there was systematic bad faith, such as a carrier having a program that rewarded folks for lowballing, that would be a class action suit, at least here in California (that program would be discoverable). Damages include punitive damages - and insurers know how unloved they are and never want to face a jury awarding punitive damages. Again, plenty of attorneys happy to take the case (on contingency) here in California.
My point isn’t that lowballing doesn’t occur, and perhaps often, it’s that the program of rewarding lowballing would be grounds for punitive damages as it was intentional and systematic and I’d be surprised whether State Farm had something so blatant. (United Healthcare seems to be that blatant, so it does happen).
I’d be surprised if Chubb didn’t measure leakage in some fashion either.
I just checked my “guaranteed replacement cost” Erie policy, and it says:
Under Personal Property Coverage, “we” do not cover on a “replacement cost” basis loss to property:
[snip]
d. which by its nature cannot be replaced by a new article including, but not limited to, antiques, fine arts, souvenirs, and collectors’ items.
I haven’t asked (or tried it), but I would expect them to put a wine collection under that category.
That said, my wine collection is a small enough portion of my net worth that I haven’t bothered insuring it separately. I am not a huge fan of insurance for losses that I can easily weather, so I just live with the risk. To each their own.
Thanks for that exceprt. That’s why reading the policy is critical. Here’s what mine says on those items:
We will pay market value at the time of loss for:
(1) antiques, fine arts, paintings, statuary, and
similar articles which by their inherent nature
cannot be replaced with new articles;
2) articles whose age or history contribute substantially
to their value including, but not
limited to, memorabilia, souvenirs, and
collectors items
Does yours have any additional language as to what basis they will use to value the claim for collector’s items? I’m good with market value, and not sure of the difference for a bottle of wine that is replaceable.
I did a quick skim, and this is what I found:
Payment will equal the cost at the time of loss of a new article identical to the one damaged, destroyed or stolen. If the identical article is no longer manufactured or is not available, “we” will pay the cost of a new article similar to that damaged or destroyed and which is of comparable quality and usefulness.
[snip]
When “replacement cost” coverage does not apply because of an exclusion under this section, “we” will pay actual cash value at the time of loss. “We” will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until the actual repair or replacement is completed. When the repair or replacement is completed, “we” will pay the additional amount “you” actually and necessarily spend to repair or replace the damaged part of the property.
The only language I see with respect to how they determine “actual cash value” is the dispute process (using impartial appraisers), but it’s possible I missed something.
That “comparable quality” is an obvious cop out for the insurer.
“Sir, this is a Grand Cru from Leroy”
“This is a Grand Cru from Bouchard. We are even”.