THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AFRICAN HUNTING FORUM

Page 1 2 

Moderators: Saeed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Insuring rifles
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
posted
Who do you use to insure your rifles when travelling.

Thanks,

AR
 
Posts: 2585 | Location: New York, USA | Registered: 13 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Reddy,
I used to use one of the agencies that specialize in firearm insurance. I was pleasantly surprised to eventually discover that my homeowners insurer, State Farm, could give me the coverage I needed at a lot cheaper price. Also, the coverage was for year-round, not for only a specific travel period like the other providers. If you haven't already talked to your own provider, give it a try.
Best regards, Tim
 
Posts: 427 | Registered: 13 June 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
WWW.SIAI.NET dealt with them for years,and they are great.


Remember, forgivness is easier to get than permission.
 
Posts: 3994 | Location: Hudsonville MI USA | Registered: 08 June 2000Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
Arjun, Travelers has a program offered through Core-Vens. See here.

There may be better programs out there, but the Core-Vens program offers the most bang for the buck that I have seen.


Mike

Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer.
 
Posts: 13766 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of SFRanger7GP
posted Hide Post
I used Core-Vens for a few years and was very happy with their service. Great rates as well.

I met these guys at DSC this year and switched when it was time to renew as they insure trophies as well.

https://www.gunandtrophy.com/

Safe and pleasant weekend to everyone.

LL
 
Posts: 887 | Location: Wichita Falls Texas or Colombia | Registered: 25 February 2011Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
I used SIAI for an upcoming trip to Zim. Insured a high dollar DR for an appropriate amount and it was done the next day no questions asked. Great outfit.
 
Posts: 170 | Location: So Cal, ....USA | Registered: 25 May 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of nhoro
posted Hide Post
I carried Core-Vens for several years as well. Between my home insurance policy and other safe guards, I decided to let my Core-Vens policy expire. I was subsequently sent a bill by Core-Vens for a portion of the premium after it should have expired. When I declined to pay, they threatened turning me over to a collection agency. Not that I give a s*&t about a collection agency, but my wife called and asked what the justification was for a bill post-expiration. They claimed that they continue to provide coverage if a client fails to pay for some period of time, and we owed them the pro-rated premium for the time they elected to extend coverage.

OK - I could have sent them a notice of cancellation, and perhaps that would have been the appropriate thing to do, but I have more pressing things to deal with on a daily basis.

Furthermore, I would be shocked if they honored the loss of one or more of my doubles had such loss occurred during their "grace period".

I have no further use for Core-Vens.


JEB Katy, TX

Already I was beginning to fall into the African way of thinking: That if
you properly respect what you are after, and shoot it cleanly and on
the animal's terrain, if you imprison in your mind all the wonder of the
day from sky to smell to breeze to flowers—then you have not merely
killed an animal. You have lent immortality to a beast you have killed
because you loved him and wanted him forever so that you could always
recapture the day - Robert Ruark

DSC Life Member
NRA Life Member
 
Posts: 367 | Registered: 20 June 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of LionHunter
posted Hide Post
Core-Vens


Mike
______________
DSC
DRSS (again)
SCI Life
NRA Life
Sables Life
Mzuri
IPHA

"To be a Marine is enough."
 
Posts: 3577 | Location: Silicon Valley | Registered: 19 November 2008Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
I have been travelling my air since 1967 - that is 52 years ago.

I travel quite a bit now, flying all over the world.

I have never lost any baggage.

Once my bag did not make it on the flight with me, and was delivered the next day.

That was on a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Now, I also have a friend, who seem to loose his bags on a regular basis.

And the he did that while travelling with me too!!

We were travelling First Class - Air Zimbabwe from Vic Falls to Johannesburg, then Emirates to Dubai.

May be some of us are just lucky??


www.accuratereloading.com
Instagram : ganyana2000
 
Posts: 69301 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
Maybe, Saeed. But now you have tempted the fates and are jinxed and doomed.

Never say never. shame


Mike

Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer.
 
Posts: 13766 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.
 
Posts: 13266 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of SFRanger7GP
posted Hide Post
Stonecreek, I agree and travel loss is definitely at the lower risk end. I carry the insurance more to cover for a possible break in where I could have a greater loss.

Safe travels
 
Posts: 887 | Location: Wichita Falls Texas or Colombia | Registered: 25 February 2011Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Use Enough Gun
posted Hide Post
quote:
We were travelling First Class - Air Zimbabwe from Vic Falls to Johannesburg, then Emirates to Dubai.

May be some of us are just lucky??


No shizz! Eeker Anybody that flew on Air Zimbabwe and lived to tell about it was just plain lucky! rotflmo rotflmo

In any event, in answering the original inquiry: SIAI located in Florida. tu2
 
Posts: 18581 | Registered: 04 April 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.


Suit yourself, of course, and no offense intended, but this may be the worst advice on this subject I have ever seen posted on these forums.


Mike

Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer.
 
Posts: 13766 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.[/QUOTE]


huh ?
 
Posts: 294 | Registered: 02 November 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Todd Williams
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.


Horrible advice.

I'll gladly pay a couple of hundred dollars for insurance against loosing a $20K double rifle on a hunt that cost the same amount.

As for rethinking the kind of gun I decide is the appropriate weapon to take on the hunt of my choice ... none of your damned business.
 
Posts: 8534 | Registered: 09 January 2011Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
If you add a few more zeros to your rifle then you might think differently Smiler

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.
 
Posts: 2585 | Location: New York, USA | Registered: 13 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Eastern Insurance is the only way to go. Price is much better than SAIA or Corvens, homeowner, etc. Ive priced them all. For example $50,000 in blanket gun insurance cost $150.00 per year. Contact person is now Laura Sewell since Jack Richardson has passed.


York, SC
 
Posts: 1149 | Registered: 13 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of jorge
posted Hide Post
quote:
Horrible advice.

concur...


USN (ret)
DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE
Cogswell & Harrison 375 Fl NE
Sabatti Big Five 375 FL Magnum NE
DSC Life Member
NRA Life Member

 
Posts: 7149 | Location: Orange Park, Florida. USA | Registered: 22 March 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Wesheltonj
posted Hide Post
quote:


. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .


Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.
 
Posts: 782 | Location: Texas Hill Country | Registered: 13 April 2016Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of DuggaBoye
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.

Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?

Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.


With that logic-
only by cheap used cars,
50% off expiring meat at the grocer
"generic "BEER" rather than even Old Milwaukee
only shoes from "Payless" or better yet Goodwill
chinese dollar watches
and on and on

We choose to do the things we do not always or even at all based on monetary values
Insurance is available --

just as we choose our activity and our rifle (watch, golf cubs etc)
so we may or may not choose to insure or not insure


DuggaBoye-O
NRA-Life
Whittington-Life
TSRA-Life
DRSS
DSC
HSC
SCI
 
Posts: 4594 | Location: TX | Registered: 03 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of DLS
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by BigBBear:
Eastern Insurance is the only way to go. Price is much better than SAIA or Corvens, homeowner, etc. Ive priced them all. For example $50,000 in blanket gun insurance cost $150.00 per year. Contact person is now Laura Sewell since Jack Richardson has passed.


Do you have a phone number or email?
 
Posts: 3939 | Location: California | Registered: 01 January 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has collected a claim for a firearm lost in transit on a hunting trip.
 
Posts: 13266 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
quote:


. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .


Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.

Now there's a logical reason to buy insurance. I'd be interested in hearing others which make financial sense.
 
Posts: 13266 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Todd Williams
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
quote:


. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .


Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.

Now there's a logical reason to buy insurance. I'd be interested in hearing others which make financial sense.


You don't think spending $150 to insure a $20,000 or more rifle makes financial sense?
 
Posts: 8534 | Registered: 09 January 2011Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
State Farm home insurance, covers everything but the dog. Been doing all my insurance business with them for 50 plus years, never been disappointed. I can also get a special firearms travel insureance for $100 that game me extra coverage on my double rifles. Highly recommend them..


Ray Atkinson
Atkinson Hunting Adventures
10 Ward Lane,
Filer, Idaho, 83328
208-731-4120

rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com
 
Posts: 42228 | Location: Twin Falls, Idaho | Registered: 04 June 2000Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
here is phone number for laura Sewell at Eastern Insurance. 1-800-545-9326. Jack Richardson used to be the main guy there but he passed last year. if any weapon you have is over $10k you must declare details on it but others are covered under a blanket. I have 2 friends that have had to file claims and both happened flawlessly.


York, SC
 
Posts: 1149 | Registered: 13 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Williams:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
quote:


. . .Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost? . . .


Yes, I would. My personal banker would not let me spend community funds to replace said firearm. However, if insurance were paying the replacement cost, it would be no problem.

Now there's a logical reason to buy insurance. I'd be interested in hearing others which make financial sense.


You don't think spending $150 to insure a $20,000 or more rifle makes financial sense?


Not when all you have to do is save that $150 premium for 133 years, then you could just buy a new rifle without going through the insurance company. fishing


____________________________________________

"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchett.
 
Posts: 3530 | Location: Wyoming | Registered: 25 February 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Clan_Colla
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has collected a claim for a firearm lost in transit on a hunting trip.

I have-
1994-
Lost 4 in transit back to the US.
Insurance paid
They were recovered by the Airline barely over a year later.
I immediately offered to refund the insurance settlement paid to me--

To my astonishment - the carrier declined due to some "internal accounting reason"

As well,had guns go missing temporarily on two other trips in the 80's and 90's
Both times recovered.
Once the way over and they were found in time to use them on the hunt, the other not until the trip was completed. (They were returned to the US)
so, Yes, I buy insurance and have benefitted from that decision.
 
Posts: 633 | Location: Texas | Registered: 30 December 2012Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
 
Posts: 1630 | Location: Vermont | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
Insurance is easy.

Whether one can afford to replace the insured item is not relevant.

If there is any appreciable risk of loss, and if buyer’s due diligence on the insurer has been done and is satisfactory, then there is only one simple equation to solve:

Value of insured item(s) minus cost of insurance.

If the answer is a significant positive number, then buy the insurance.


Mike

Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer.
 
Posts: 13766 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.
 
Posts: 13266 | Location: Henly, TX, USA | Registered: 04 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Thanks everyone for your advise in the end I ended up using SIAI, who i have used in the past as well.

Thanks,

AR
 
Posts: 2585 | Location: New York, USA | Registered: 13 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Maybe you can afford to lose a $30,000 double rifle, I cannot!

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.
 
Posts: 2585 | Location: New York, USA | Registered: 13 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Michael Robinson
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.


Yeah, I get real emotional when I consider losing any one or more of them that cost more than an automobile - or, God forbid, all of them in a house fire!

But there is no emotion in the equation I posted above.

Just arithmetic:

Value of insured item(s) minus cost of insurance.

If the answer is a significant positive number, then buy the insurance.


Mike

Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer.
 
Posts: 13766 | Location: New England | Registered: 06 June 2003Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of MacD37
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Buy insurance against losing a rifle on an African hunt? What financial goal are you attempting to accomplish? Seems nonsensical to me.

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate a loss you cannot otherwise afford to absorb. The simplest of African plains game hunts will cost a minimum of $10,000, with $25,000 closer to the norm. If a hunter can afford the "loss" of this amount of money, then it is difficult to see not being able to absorb the loss of a $1,000 to $2,000 rifle.
Will you truly be financially distressed if your rifle is lost?


Perhaps the rifle has great sentimental value to you. An insurance pay-off won't do anything to mitigate the loss of sentiment, now will it?

Whatever the premium for such insurance, it amounts to a built-in "loss". Why would you intentionally incur such a loss when you can afford to absorb a larger, but by definition, unlikely loss?

Maybe you're taking a $35,000 British-built double with you on your $10,000 hunt. It would be understandable that you can afford to drop $10,000 but not an extra $35,000. If that is the case maybe you should rethink the kind of guns you want to take traveling.



The facts in bold print tend to negate your opinion on the need for insurance on a firearm that may or may not be worth the cost to you, but in my case though my only very expensive rifle is a Westley Richards 500-450 ex double rifle but I have several other double rifles that are in the $10K-$20K range, and bolts that are in the $5K range that certainly do not want to loose, and the insurance cost is so I can try to replace what I lost, no matter the monetary value, regardless if it is a old keepsake or a real monetary loss.
I simply do not understand the fact that I can afford to replace any rifle lost, because of my ability to afford an African safari as a reason to not insure my rifles against loss, cheap or expensive.

……………………………………………... Confused


....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

 
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.


Cause you are rational and close to risk neutral.

Insurance is a great business. Especially insuring remote low probability events. Warren buffet has made vast sums of money doing it - the float from insurance premiums is a thing of beauty.

The problem is you need a mechanism to do it. I would write insurance for firearms travel all day. The insurance part is stupid simple and it completely favors the party writing the insurance. Collecting or writing premium to highly risk averse people going of marketed dangerous game hunts ( Big Grin) would require you to set up a booth at dsc or sci. It’s a thin market and the administrative/transaction cost of doing it is expensive not the payout on the insurance.

Guns don’t get lost in baggage - they are a pretty well monitored class of cargo for airlines.

There are alternatives or risk reducing supplements to buying insurance - fly Emirates or minimize stop over points.

I have not looked at these insurance contracts cause I don’t buy them. But knowing how insurance contracts are written - always favor the party selling insurance. I would bet claims would need to be filed with airlines and the $1,700 allowance on international flights would have to be utilized first.

One can insure or self insure. A lot of real risk in life is self insured. I insure one of my houses cause I keep a bank equity line on it. The insurance moves most of the risk onto me and insures the tails - I am fine with that.

In Florida few insurance contracts insure sink holes that are a real material risk. My deductible for hurricane is $30k. My dog being a German Shepherd is not insured. I just need the tails hedged and that is what I pay for.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
Thanks for all of the replies.

Some people buy insurance (on many things, not just guns) in a way that seems to defy financial logic. I've long been puzzled by this phenomenon, but the comments here provide a great deal of insight into the emotions and decision-making processes that result in a choice of whether to buy or not.

I am a bit surprised that a group of people who are likely on the higher end of the income scale are apparently rather sensitive to the prospect of relatively small losses. Few people, even those in the top 5% of income, can absorb the loss of something like a house or a small business location without significant financial distress,. The same is true of losing the cost of an automobile. So virtually all of us insure those things.

However, if you have a loss on your house or car the deductible is similar to, or even higher than, the cost of the typical hunting rifle -- even a very nice one. But this same group of people doesn't seem to fret over the deductible. This seems very odd to me. The deductible on my car is $2,000. The deductible on my house is around $4,000. I own some very nice firearms whose value runs into four figures, but none of them start with more than a "4".

So, if a hailstorm (exceedingly common in Texas) beats the roof off of my house I'll be out $4,000 before the insurance starts to help out in replacing it. But if I'm not losing sleep over that, why should I fret about the possibility of losing a gun on a hunting trip which is of some lesser value? I think you can understand why trip insurance for my gun seems illogical to me. But I can now understand why it seems compulsory for others. Decisions need not follow logic when emotion is involved.


Yeah, I get real emotional when I consider losing any one or more of them that cost more than an automobile - or, God forbid, all of them in a house fire!

But there is no emotion in the equation I posted above.

Just arithmetic:

Value of insured item(s) minus cost of insurance.

If the answer is a significant positive number, then buy the insurance.


The right math is

Value of insured items * probability of loss = expected loss

An insurance company spreads the risk over numerous events/policies and has the law of large number.

An insurance company is also risk neutral - so it only looks at expected loss over large number of policies.

Individuals - even macho dangerous game African hunters are risk averse. They also don’t do the work or it’s cost prohibitive or beyond their scope to observe the probability of loss as they are not under writing insurance. So for them it is pay $150 or $300 to insure a $30k gun. When the expected loss could be $10.

It’s all about how risk averse one is. Stone creek observation is people get risk averse about traveling with guns but not other things in life. Welcome to the beauty of dealing with primates - humans are not rational and real and perceived risk aversion plays a big part.

Mike
 
Posts: 13145 | Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida | Registered: 22 July 2010Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Wow, one can tell who actually understands the risks of traveling to and moving though Africa and who doesn't.

For more than 25 years of traveling to and living in Africa, I have lost count of the number of folks who have had bags, valuables, equipment and/or firearms stolen at airports, hotels, vehicles, and camps. And with the risk of violence and crime only rising on the African continent, it only makes sense to protect yourself and equipment with insurance.

I find it odd that some folks believe that emergency medical evac insurance or trip insurance is a good buy, but investing a few additional bucks for gun insurance is a terrible idea. Some folks need to go back to logic school. I suppose if one goes to malaria country it's also good idea to save all that money on prophylaxis medication and just roll the dice.

Insurance of any kind is a complete and total waste of money... until you need it.


___________________

Just Remember, We ALL Told You So.
 
Posts: 22445 | Location: Occupying Little Minds Rent Free | Registered: 04 October 2012Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of MacD37
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Opus1:
Wow, one can tell who actually understands the risks of traveling to and moving though Africa and who doesn't.

For more than 25 years of traveling to and living in Africa, I have lost count of the number of folks who have had bags, valuables, equipment and/or firearms stolen at airports, hotels, vehicles, and camps. And with the risk of violence and crime only rising on the African continent, it only makes sense to protect yourself and equipment with insurance.

I find it odd that some folks believe that emergency medical evac insurance or trip insurance is a good buy, but investing a few additional bucks for gun insurance is a terrible idea. Some folks need to go back to logic school. I suppose if one goes to malaria country it's also good idea to save all that money on prophylaxis medication and just roll the dice.

Insurance of any kind is a complete and total waste of money... until you need it.


I retired from 31 years working for one of the largest major international airlines in the world! Tell me again that things of real value don't disappear, to never be found!

…………………………………………………………... 2020


....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

 
Posts: 14634 | Location: TEXAS | Registered: 08 June 2000Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia

Since January 8 1998 you are visitor #: