Gun Insurance

_______________________________

Cal Pappas, Willow, Alaska
www.CalPappas.com
www.CalPappas.blogspot.com
1994 Zimbabwe
1997 Zimbabwe
1998 Zimbabwe
1999 Zimbabwe
1999 Namibia, Botswana, Zambia--vacation
2000 Australia
2002 South Africa
2003 South Africa
2003 Zimbabwe
2005 South Africa
2005 Zimbabwe
2006 Tanzania
2006 Zimbabwe--vacation
2007 Zimbabwe--vacation
2008 Zimbabwe
2012 Australia
2013 South Africa
2013 Zimbabwe
2013 Australia
2016 Zimbabwe
2017 Zimbabwe
2018 South Africa
2018 Zimbabwe--vacation
2019 South Africa
2019 Botswana
2019 Zimbabwe vacation
2021 South Africa
2021 South Africa (2nd hunt a month later)
______________________________

31 December 2012, 17:59

DoubleDon

Collectables Insurance Services in Hunt Valley, Md. 888-837-9537 or email them at info@collectinsure.com

31 December 2012, 20:40

butchloc

just go to your household insurance. you must list the item and a cost for it. they will add it to your household insurance for a very reasonable cost

31 December 2012, 20:57

elk88101

I agree most home owners cover in basic coverage $5000
Before you leave take pictures and have any bill of sales papers
Then call your agent and add them as specific items with serial numbers and pictures and you will not have a problem
If stolen get a police report
If damaged by airline make out a damage claim
If you have State Farm never a problem
Larry

31 December 2012, 21:49

BigBBear

Guys, Cal has it right. Do the math. I used to use Sportsmans but the guns have to be identified independantly on the policy which is a pain in case you trade, take a different one, etc. Eastern Insurance (Jack Richardson) is simply tops and you save a ton of money. Only guns that have to be pre-identified are ones over 10k (I think it may be more). If you need to call Jack I have his number but I think you can google them. Todd, would be a good move for you to make the change. Call me and I can tell you of some experiences with friends and Eastern.

Larry

01 January 2013, 02:49

MJines

Just do a rider on your homeowners policy. You do not have to schedule the items and can insure for whatever premium limit you want . . . or at least that is what I was able to do.

01 January 2013, 04:42

MikeBurke

Another option is Core-Vens

http://www.corevensguninsuranc...oting_Sportsman.html

Worldwide coverage, tailored to hunters, and includes 10,000 for equipment such as binos, etc.

I used their coverage last year, good to deal with, but never filed a claim.

01 January 2013, 06:43

Todd Williams

quote:
Originally posted by BigBBear:
Guys, Cal has it right. Do the math. I used to use Sportsmans but the guns have to be identified independantly on the policy which is a pain in case you trade, take a different one, etc. Eastern Insurance (Jack Richardson) is simply tops and you save a ton of money. Only guns that have to be pre-identified are ones over 10k (I think it may be more). If you need to call Jack I have his number but I think you can google them. Todd, would be a good move for you to make the change. Call me and I can tell you of some experiences with friends and Eastern.

Larry

Yep Larry, when I saw Cal's premium for the amount of coverage, I started getting interested. I'll certainly take a look at them when this policy runs out.

01 January 2013, 07:39

LionHunter

I did a search but was unable to identify which Eastern Insurance - common name - and could not match the telephone number provided by Cal. I am always interested in saving a few $$, especially on any kind of insurance.

So Larry or Cal, how about some good contact info?

Also, as regards homeowners riders for guns, be sure you get international coverage that will include charter aircraft. While I haven't checked recently, I do know that 15 years ago homeowners were not a viable option for safari hunters. Things may have changed but always get it in writing.

01 January 2013, 09:32

Frostbit

quote:
Originally posted by BigBBear:
Guys, Cal has it right. Do the math. I used to use Sportsmans but the guns have to be identified independantly on the policy which is a pain in case you trade, take a different one, etc. Eastern Insurance (Jack Richardson) is simply tops and you save a ton of money. Only guns that have to be pre-identified are ones over 10k (I think it may be more). If you need to call Jack I have his number but I think you can google them. Todd, would be a good move for you to make the change. Call me and I can tell you of some experiences with friends and Eastern.

Larry

Larry turned me on to Eastern after I bought his Army & Navy double. They are great to deal with and remarkably reasonably priced.

Eastern Insurance Group, LLC
933 Webster Street
Marshfield, MA 02050

Phone: 781-834-6578 X59177
Fax: 508-652-4392

______________________
DRSS
______________________
Hunt Reports

2015 His & Her Leopards with Derek Littleton of Luwire Safaris - http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/2971090112
2015 Trophy Bull Elephant with CMS http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/1651069012
DIY Brooks Range Sheep Hunt 2013 - http://forums.accuratereloadin...901038191#9901038191
Zambia June/July 2012 with Andrew Baldry - Royal Kafue http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/7971064771
Zambia Sept 2010- Muchinga Safaris http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/4211096141
Namibia Sept 2010 - ARUB Safaris http://forums.accuratereloadin...6321043/m/6781076141

01 January 2013, 10:11

Todd Williams

Thanks Jim. I'll check them out.

01 January 2013, 11:33

cal pappas

Gents:
I'm on my way to Dallas and will find the contact info upon my return home on the 9th.
Cal
PS. That coverage is for my SKS collection!

03 January 2013, 05:54

Stonecreek

If you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a gun, then it's a gun you can't afford to own.

It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

03 January 2013, 08:20

MJines

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

Unless I am missing something, that is just nonsensical. I can afford to adsorb the loss of my vehicle, I choose to carry insurance since the cost of insurance relative to the risk and cost of the loss, is a value proposition I find worthwhile. For example, if you could insure a $25,000 rifle for $25/year and you estimated that there was a 5% chance of a loss, even if you could afford the loss, the insurance is a worthwhile proposition. I must be missing something in what you intended.

03 January 2013, 20:06

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by MJines:
I can afford to adsorb the loss of my vehicle, I choose to carry insurance since the cost of insurance relative to the risk and cost of the loss, is a value proposition I find worthwhile.

In other words, you think you are better at judging risk than the actuarial professionals who work for the insurance companies and you can beat the system? Fine, be my guest.

But an automobile is a good example. I carry only liability insurance since a half-million dollar personal injury I might cause is a cost I cannot afford to absorb. I don't carry collision insurance since, in the highly unlikely event that I cause the loss of my own vehicle, I can afford to replace it. However, if I am a hungry college student just scraping by I would have no choice other than to buy collision insurance since I could not absorb the loss and still do things like eat and pay my tuition (and my car is likely financed and the bank naturally requires it be insured for loss.)

For example, if you could insure a $25,000 rifle for $25/year and you estimated that there was a 5% chance of a loss, even if you could afford the loss, the insurance is a worthwhile proposition. I must be missing something in what you intended.

If you could purchase insurance for an item with a 5% annual loss rate for only .1% of its value it would be an obvious scam. If the annual loss rate were 5% then a legitimate insurance company would have to charge somewhere between 7% and 10% of the declared value in order to break even. I don't think you'd pay a premium of $2,500 on a $25,000 dollar item.

04 January 2013, 02:38

MikeBurke

If anybody is interested CoreVens is at DSC across the aisle from CM Safaris booth 2620

04 January 2013, 03:36

Todd Williams

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a gun, then it's a gun you can't afford to own.

It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

Using your logic, one would have to say "if you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a house, then it's a house you can't afford to own"! I don't mean to be insulting, but what is the train of thought you are using on that one? What IS insurance for in your opinion since you made that statement?

I must disagree and state that specifically, it IS what insurance is for; ie. a small premium paid against a small chance of needing to replace an expensive item. While I can ultimately afford to absorb the cost of loosing the two doubles I insured this year for my trip to Zim, I am willing to pay a small premium to prevent having to do so in the event they were lost, damaged, or stolen. From a financial standpoint, I would say that is smart money well spent.

04 January 2013, 20:18

ChiefR53

Has anyone had to submit a claim to Eastern?
Satisfied with handling?
Thanks

12 January 2013, 20:42

Divernhunter

Due to this post I checked with my insurance company. My firearms and other items are covered under my home insurance anywhere in the world. But if I hunt on another planet or moon I would have to get extra coverage.

14 January 2013, 18:30

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by Divernhunter:
Due to this post I checked with my insurance company. My firearms and other items are covered under my home insurance anywhere in the world. But if I hunt on another planet or moon I would have to get extra coverage.

Depending on what state you live in and what policy terms you have paid for, your deductible may exceed the value of your guns.

You also have the problem, if the gun or guns are not specifically "scheduled" on the policy, of proving to the satisfaction of the insurance company that you actually owned the gun(s) and what their value was.

I was shocked at how an insurance company treated an acquaintance who lost a half dozen guns in a home burglary. The insurance company asked for an independent appraisal. The guy sent a list of the stolen guns specifying their approximate age, condition, and accessories to a long time dealer in the area. The dealer put a mid-range price on each of them. After an extended period of non-response, the insurance company declined to pay anything, saying that the guns were all "15 or more years old, meaning that they were completely depreciated" and worth nothing.

Remember, all that buying an insurance policy does for you is give you the right to bring an action against the insurer for recovery. On smaller claims, if the insurance company doesn't want to pay, then you are essentially screwed since the cost of bringing an action (other than writing a deaf-ears complaint to the state insurance department) will exceed the potential recovery. If you buy insurance from a company which is domiciled outside of your own state of residence, then you are at even greater risk of failing to recover.

Caveat emptor.

14 January 2013, 18:56

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by Todd Williams:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a gun, then it's a gun you can't afford to own.

It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

Using your logic, one would have to say "if you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a house, then it's a house you can't afford to own"!

A house (an owned home) is a necessity which usually represents a major portion of a person's assets. Very few people could absorb the loss of a house without suffering a significant, even terminal (resulting in bankruptcy) financial setback. That's why you insure it.

A hunting rifle is (almost always) a recreational item which is purchased with discretionary income and its value represents only a tiny portion of a person's assets. Its loss, although bothersome and perhaps painful, would not create a financial setback of any significance for its owner.

If its value does represent a significant part of a person's assets and its loss would create a financial hardship, then it is not the type of discretionary property that you have any business owning, much less toting around from continent to continent.

There are exceptions, of course. A starving college student might inherit a $50,000 double rifle from a great uncle. The college student better put that rifle in a safe place and purchase specific insurance on it with a specified value and an appraisal to go with it. And in his financial condition, he ain't about to go running off to hunt Africa with it or any other rifle.

I know plenty of people who have done a fantastic plains game hunt for around $10,000. They took a rifle worth around $1,000. If they had lost that rifle, then the hunt would have cost them $11,000 instead of $10,000. That's hardly a deal breaker, much less something that would put a person into bankruptcy or cause them to miss a mortgage payment.

There are other people who might spend $150,000 on a 21-day hunt which includes three of the Big Five. If they were to lose the $15,000 double they took for ele, then they would be pretty disgusted, but hardly broke. Recovering or not recovering the value of the rifle from an insurer wouldn't make any difference at all, ever, to their financial condition. Why would they want to insure a rifle?

Perhaps there are other circumstances which do make insuring a wise choice, but such circumstances are the exception and not the rule. Every individual should examine his/her own circumstances to evaluate whether and how much they might need to insure what. For most of us, it's money poorly spent.

14 January 2013, 20:52

BigBBear

Thanks Jim for posting the right number. The guy you want to talk to there is Jack Richardson. If I have it right, he is one of the agency principals and this is one of his main focuses. As to claims, I do know of two and they were handled promptly with no issues. I asked the same questions before I signed up. I have had no claims myself. What it works out to is about 1/3 of all others and you only have to list the bigger items I think over 10k. What I did not like about Sportsmans was that all guns had to be listed and if you decided on a change late in the game on which gun to take you could be in trouble. Also, if you were going to Africa and then later say Mexico then the overall policy at Eastern had all guns covered wheras SIA did not unless of course you had paid the premium on all of them. Todd, another point is that virtually all insurance can be cancelled with a return of principal if you are interested in moving faster. Also, as a note Eastern contracts with 2 underwriters, one of them being Chubb(sp) which is a large underwriter.

Larry

14 January 2013, 20:52

Pulicords

I've insured my firearms through the NRA with Lockton: http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/ArmsCarePlus.htm

They provided me with the same rates as some of the other carriers listed here and if I take firearms with me on hunts outside the U.S. there are no additional fees involved. All I have to do is let them know which guns will be going with me. A very good company to deal with in my experience.

14 January 2013, 21:13

LionHead

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
Originally posted by MJines:
I can afford to adsorb the loss of my vehicle, I choose to carry insurance since the cost of insurance relative to the risk and cost of the loss, is a value proposition I find worthwhile.

In other words, you think you are better at judging risk than the actuarial professionals who work for the insurance companies and you can beat the system? Fine, be my guest.

But an automobile is a good example. I carry only liability insurance since a half-million dollar personal injury I might cause is a cost I cannot afford to absorb. I don't carry collision insurance since, in the highly unlikely event that I cause the loss of my own vehicle, I can afford to replace it. However, if I am a hungry college student just scraping by I would have no choice other than to buy collision insurance since I could not absorb the loss and still do things like eat and pay my tuition (and my car is likely financed and the bank naturally requires it be insured for loss.)

For example, if you could insure a $25,000 rifle for $25/year and you estimated that there was a 5% chance of a loss, even if you could afford the loss, the insurance is a worthwhile proposition. I must be missing something in what you intended.

If you could purchase insurance for an item with a 5% annual loss rate for only .1% of its value it would be an obvious scam. If the annual loss rate were 5% then a legitimate insurance company would have to charge somewhere between 7% and 10% of the declared value in order to break even. I don't think you'd pay a premium of $2,500 on a $25,000 dollar item.

MJines,
What's lost on Stonedcreek is the risk associated with third world countries handling your firearms. Then there's the 'in use' factor as opposed to sitting in a safe at home (try inputting those probabilities and statistics).
I've read many reports of the hunter flying home without their firearm(s). I've also witnessed firearms getting destroyed by horses trying to dislodge their rider/hunter.
But if I had a Phoenix business degree and as much money (not to mention antipathy of insurance companies) as he did I wouldn't bother to get a policy either.
He did bring up one good point and that is the deductible.
Also, someone mentioned State Farm. Might double check that as I don't think they will cover damaged. I believe it has to be stolen (police report needed).

14 January 2013, 21:26

Terry Blauwkamp

I second Sportsman's Ins. ( SIAI), I've had two claims with them, and they were great to work with.

15 January 2013, 02:27

Duckear

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a gun, then it's a gun you can't afford to own.

It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

Risk tolerance is a very personal thing. Thanks for sharing YOUR tolerance for risk and how you have dealt with it.

As far as telling others what THEIR risk tolerance should be or how they should manage it, well, KMA.

15 January 2013, 05:30

JPrice

quote:
http://www.corevensguninsuranc...oting_Sportsman.html

I use CoreVens for both my guns and trophy insurance

15 January 2013, 06:56

Stonecreek

quote:
Originally posted by Duckear:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a gun, then it's a gun you can't afford to own.

It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

Risk tolerance is a very personal thing. Thanks for sharing YOUR tolerance for risk and how you have dealt with it.

As far as telling others what THEIR risk tolerance should be or how they should manage it, well, KMA.

"Every individual should examine his/her own circumstances to evaluate whether and how much they might need to insure what."

I was very clear that what a person insures and for how much is and should be an individual choice based on an individual's circumstances. So, on the contrary, kiss mine, Duckear.

The premium one pays for insurance reflects (1) the aggregated loss experience, (2) the overhead of writing and selling the insurance policy, (3) the cost to the insurer for re-insurance for excessive loss, (4) the cost of servicing claims (claims adjusters), and (5) the profit earned by the insurer. On small specialty lines of insurance, the loss experience may only be a small fraction of the premium since the other overhead items are much larger (relative to the dollar volume) than with insurance like auto or homeowners. If you are going to buy loss protection for your gun, then you need to recognize that the insurance company will have to charge you a premium that is quite considerably larger than your proportional share of the loss experience. In other words, viewed (inappropriately, but understandably) in Las Vegas terms, the payback from this slot machine is going to be very, very low.

Put another way, if you made 1,000 overseas hunts you would almost certainly lose some guns. But the value of the guns you lost in those 1,000 trips would be only a fraction of the premium you had to pay to insure them. Only you can make a rational decision on whether insuring your guns is the best course for you to take, but you need to be well aware of the cost/benefit when making that decision.

15 January 2013, 08:06

Todd Williams

quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
quote:
Originally posted by Todd Williams:
quote:
Originally posted by Stonecreek:
If you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a gun, then it's a gun you can't afford to own.

It is nonsense to insure against a loss you are able to absorb. That's not what insurance is for.

Using your logic, one would have to say "if you can't absorb the financial loss of losing a house, then it's a house you can't afford to own"!

A house (an owned home) is a necessity which usually represents a major portion of a person's assets. Very few people could absorb the loss of a house without suffering a significant, even terminal (resulting in bankruptcy) financial setback. That's why you insure it.

A hunting rifle is (almost always) a recreational item which is purchased with discretionary income and its value represents only a tiny portion of a person's assets. Its loss, although bothersome and perhaps painful, would not create a financial setback of any significance for its owner.

If its value does represent a significant part of a person's assets and its loss would create a financial hardship, then it is not the type of discretionary property that you have any business owning, much less toting around from continent to continent.

Again, by your logic, one could choose to live in a trailer home rather than a 5,000 sq ft brick and stone mansion that would cause bankruptcy if lost in a fire, flood or other disaster without insurance! The house may be a necessity vs a luxury item as is the gun, but in all honesty, the trailer home ($1,000 rifle) would provide shelter from the elements just as well as the mansion ($50,000 double). It's a matter of personal preference and the only home or rifle you are entitled to pass judgement on as to whether or not a person has any business owning is your own.

Your $1,000 Remchesterby is likely to go down in value over the next 20 years. Good quality doubles are likely to go up in value. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could sell one of the rifles I hunted with this past October for a hefty profit today if I wanted to get rid of it since I purchased it for a good price. Over the next 10 to 20 years, if I'm lucky enough to be around and continue hunting at the level I do today, the price of insurance on those guns over the same period of time will likely be less than the amount of value those guns will appreciate over the same timeframe. From that standpoint, it is worth it to me to insure them against loss, the reason being that say 20 years from now, I should be able to sell them for an amount that will cover their original investment as well as the cost of insurance for 20 years. Weighed against the possibility of loss or damage from a single or multiple events over that 20 year timeframe while taking them on the road and exposing them to the rigors of the hunt and travel, I'd say that is money well spent. I would agree however that insuring the Remchesterby would not be worthwhile.

15 January 2013, 19:29

Stonecreek

Points well taken, Todd, and they do illustrate why, as I have been insisting, insuring is a choice which must fit the circumstances.

If I insisted on carrying a $50,000 dollar original oil painting around with me when I travel to decorate my motel room with, then I'm sure I would choose to insure it.

When disproportionate risks occur, insurance is one way of managing those risks, which is why I insure my home but not my ATV. For similar reasons, I never buy the extended warranty on gadgets from Harbor Freight and Tool.

Circumstances do occur under which it is logical to insure a gun taken on a trip. My point is that for the vast majority of us, those circumstances never occur.