All those little insurances.....
Discussion
I suffer a little paranoia about things breaking down or going wrong, so I tend to get insurance on many things.
So, house insurance, dogs, car, bikes, Homecare house plumbing, electric shower insurance, and a half dozen piddling little insurances with AO for all the house gear we bought when we moved here 7 months ago.....
Ridiculous, waste of money, blatantly unnecessary, or just peace of mind?
All in all they add up to a bloody fortune every year. For what I pay for the appliances cover I could buy a new one, cooker, fridge, TV, for example, every year!
Dogs alone is £900 a year.
I think I could/should phone up and cancel the lot (apart from house and vehicles) But then I know something will s
t itself a week later.
Go on, abuse me, ridicule me, I KNOW it is all my own fault, I KNOW nobody forced me to take them out, so no need for the traditional PH derisory tedium.
So, house insurance, dogs, car, bikes, Homecare house plumbing, electric shower insurance, and a half dozen piddling little insurances with AO for all the house gear we bought when we moved here 7 months ago.....
Ridiculous, waste of money, blatantly unnecessary, or just peace of mind?
All in all they add up to a bloody fortune every year. For what I pay for the appliances cover I could buy a new one, cooker, fridge, TV, for example, every year!
Dogs alone is £900 a year.
I think I could/should phone up and cancel the lot (apart from house and vehicles) But then I know something will s
t itself a week later. Go on, abuse me, ridicule me, I KNOW it is all my own fault, I KNOW nobody forced me to take them out, so no need for the traditional PH derisory tedium.
Keep the pet insurance, scrap the rest
When our Chow needed emergency surgery last year and subsequently passed away the bill rocketed to over £3.5k in the space of 2hrs ... vet charges are based on knowing most clients have insurance and therefore can/do charge more than 'appropriate' - I'm always amazed at people who don't insure animals
When our Chow needed emergency surgery last year and subsequently passed away the bill rocketed to over £3.5k in the space of 2hrs ... vet charges are based on knowing most clients have insurance and therefore can/do charge more than 'appropriate' - I'm always amazed at people who don't insure animals
Why do you need separate insurance for home appliances? Add accidental damage cover to your home insurance with a low excess if you're that worried... It doesn't cost much.
Dog insurance is essential, as said above. You don't want to be in a position where you have to put a price on their quality of life.
If you can afford to replace something (even with a lesser-but-acceptable model), don't insure it.
Dog insurance is essential, as said above. You don't want to be in a position where you have to put a price on their quality of life.
If you can afford to replace something (even with a lesser-but-acceptable model), don't insure it.
You're not buying any of it from me, so I'm happy to ridicule you for it! :-p
But, generally, as I rely on selling insurance to feed, clothe and house the kids, I work on the basis of the more insurance the better!
In all seriousness though, you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that insurance is 'risk transfer' - if you can handle the risk yourself, for instance by putting money aside each month to cover any unexpected heating bills, then do that. If you can't, buy insurance.
But, generally, as I rely on selling insurance to feed, clothe and house the kids, I work on the basis of the more insurance the better!
In all seriousness though, you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that insurance is 'risk transfer' - if you can handle the risk yourself, for instance by putting money aside each month to cover any unexpected heating bills, then do that. If you can't, buy insurance.
I agree with the other posters, Dog/Pet insurance is a must, we had vet bills of about £9k over 2 years with one of our dogs. Without insurance I may have had to say enough is enough and make a hard decision, one which I don't think I could have ever forgiven myself for. The insurance was a godsend.
It's a maths game where on average most people lose but a few people win.
I think my approach is to only insure things you either a) have to or b) can't afford to lose which seems to be a common approach. Cars & Houses (Buildings), you kind of have to and I would argue Family Travel Insurance is one where you can't afford to lose.
In general, I think the cost of these insurances represent close to fair value (i.e. the underlying risk) although in the case of car insurance - I'd personally rather see fewer payouts and a lower average cost if at all possible.
Optional insurances seem to represent the worst value. E.g. phone insurance, hire car excess insurance, toaster insurance at PC world etc - I don't take out any of these.
These are a mug's game unless you play the system at which point those not playing the system are paying for those that do- i.e. the cost covers all of those taking their fridge back after 2 1/2 years for a "new" one.....
The Pet insurance is a funny one - Personally I believe this should be No - many people I know have claimed and believe they are "up on the deal", but you could argue the vets are wise to this and the whole thing stinks. i.e. people buy expensive pet insurance and the vet knows they can bill a whole load of stuff when someone walks in with a poorly pet preying on people's emotions causing insurance costs to be high - one could argue this needs better regulation......
Bob
£900 buys you a new puppy and that's far better than an old sick dog.....
I think my approach is to only insure things you either a) have to or b) can't afford to lose which seems to be a common approach. Cars & Houses (Buildings), you kind of have to and I would argue Family Travel Insurance is one where you can't afford to lose.
In general, I think the cost of these insurances represent close to fair value (i.e. the underlying risk) although in the case of car insurance - I'd personally rather see fewer payouts and a lower average cost if at all possible.
Optional insurances seem to represent the worst value. E.g. phone insurance, hire car excess insurance, toaster insurance at PC world etc - I don't take out any of these.
These are a mug's game unless you play the system at which point those not playing the system are paying for those that do- i.e. the cost covers all of those taking their fridge back after 2 1/2 years for a "new" one.....
The Pet insurance is a funny one - Personally I believe this should be No - many people I know have claimed and believe they are "up on the deal", but you could argue the vets are wise to this and the whole thing stinks. i.e. people buy expensive pet insurance and the vet knows they can bill a whole load of stuff when someone walks in with a poorly pet preying on people's emotions causing insurance costs to be high - one could argue this needs better regulation......
Bob
£900 buys you a new puppy and that's far better than an old sick dog.....
fat80b said:
It's a maths game where on average most people lose but a few people win.
I think my approach is to only insure things you either a) have to or b) can't afford to lose which seems to be a common approach. Cars & Houses (Buildings), you kind of have to and I would argue Family Travel Insurance is one where you can't afford to lose.
In general, I think the cost of these insurances represent close to fair value (i.e. the underlying risk) although in the case of car insurance - I'd personally rather see fewer payouts and a lower average cost if at all possible.
Optional insurances seem to represent the worst value. E.g. phone insurance, hire car excess insurance, toaster insurance at PC world etc - I don't take out any of these.
These are a mug's game unless you play the system at which point those not playing the system are paying for those that do- i.e. the cost covers all of those taking their fridge back after 2 1/2 years for a "new" one.....
The Pet insurance is a funny one - Personally I believe this should be No - many people I know have claimed and believe they are "up on the deal", but you could argue the vets are wise to this and the whole thing stinks. i.e. people buy expensive pet insurance and the vet knows they can bill a whole load of stuff when someone walks in with a poorly pet preying on people's emotions causing insurance costs to be high - one could argue this needs better regulation......
Bob
£900 buys you a new puppy and that's far better than an old sick dog.....
You were doing so well until the last sentence.I think my approach is to only insure things you either a) have to or b) can't afford to lose which seems to be a common approach. Cars & Houses (Buildings), you kind of have to and I would argue Family Travel Insurance is one where you can't afford to lose.
In general, I think the cost of these insurances represent close to fair value (i.e. the underlying risk) although in the case of car insurance - I'd personally rather see fewer payouts and a lower average cost if at all possible.
Optional insurances seem to represent the worst value. E.g. phone insurance, hire car excess insurance, toaster insurance at PC world etc - I don't take out any of these.
These are a mug's game unless you play the system at which point those not playing the system are paying for those that do- i.e. the cost covers all of those taking their fridge back after 2 1/2 years for a "new" one.....
The Pet insurance is a funny one - Personally I believe this should be No - many people I know have claimed and believe they are "up on the deal", but you could argue the vets are wise to this and the whole thing stinks. i.e. people buy expensive pet insurance and the vet knows they can bill a whole load of stuff when someone walks in with a poorly pet preying on people's emotions causing insurance costs to be high - one could argue this needs better regulation......
Bob
£900 buys you a new puppy and that's far better than an old sick dog.....
The £3.5k+ bill we had was for a puppy ... he was only 18mths old and perfectly healthy up to the morning when he was rushed to the vets
And £900 would come nowhere near close to the cost of a good puppy from a reputable breeder in our case - plus the insurance refunded the purchase price of the puppy as well ... so in total we paid £99 excess and it covered about £3700 in vet bills plus another £2000 in refunded purchase price - bargain for the monthly amount of £40ish a month we were paying to Animal Friends
I agree vet costs should be regulated and that insurance has pushed prices through the roof but until the point that happens I suggest it's a must for anyone with a pet.
And £900 would come nowhere near close to the cost of a good puppy from a reputable breeder in our case - plus the insurance refunded the purchase price of the puppy as well ... so in total we paid £99 excess and it covered about £3700 in vet bills plus another £2000 in refunded purchase price - bargain for the monthly amount of £40ish a month we were paying to Animal Friends
I agree vet costs should be regulated and that insurance has pushed prices through the roof but until the point that happens I suggest it's a must for anyone with a pet.
desolate said:
fat80b said:
It's a maths game where on average most people lose but a few people win.
I think my approach is to only insure things you either a) have to or b) can't afford to lose which seems to be a common approach. Cars & Houses (Buildings), you kind of have to and I would argue Family Travel Insurance is one where you can't afford to lose.
In general, I think the cost of these insurances represent close to fair value (i.e. the underlying risk) although in the case of car insurance - I'd personally rather see fewer payouts and a lower average cost if at all possible.
Optional insurances seem to represent the worst value. E.g. phone insurance, hire car excess insurance, toaster insurance at PC world etc - I don't take out any of these.
These are a mug's game unless you play the system at which point those not playing the system are paying for those that do- i.e. the cost covers all of those taking their fridge back after 2 1/2 years for a "new" one.....
The Pet insurance is a funny one - Personally I believe this should be No - many people I know have claimed and believe they are "up on the deal", but you could argue the vets are wise to this and the whole thing stinks. i.e. people buy expensive pet insurance and the vet knows they can bill a whole load of stuff when someone walks in with a poorly pet preying on people's emotions causing insurance costs to be high - one could argue this needs better regulation......
Bob
£900 buys you a new puppy and that's far better than an old sick dog.....
You were doing so well until the last sentence.I think my approach is to only insure things you either a) have to or b) can't afford to lose which seems to be a common approach. Cars & Houses (Buildings), you kind of have to and I would argue Family Travel Insurance is one where you can't afford to lose.
In general, I think the cost of these insurances represent close to fair value (i.e. the underlying risk) although in the case of car insurance - I'd personally rather see fewer payouts and a lower average cost if at all possible.
Optional insurances seem to represent the worst value. E.g. phone insurance, hire car excess insurance, toaster insurance at PC world etc - I don't take out any of these.
These are a mug's game unless you play the system at which point those not playing the system are paying for those that do- i.e. the cost covers all of those taking their fridge back after 2 1/2 years for a "new" one.....
The Pet insurance is a funny one - Personally I believe this should be No - many people I know have claimed and believe they are "up on the deal", but you could argue the vets are wise to this and the whole thing stinks. i.e. people buy expensive pet insurance and the vet knows they can bill a whole load of stuff when someone walks in with a poorly pet preying on people's emotions causing insurance costs to be high - one could argue this needs better regulation......
Bob
£900 buys you a new puppy and that's far better than an old sick dog.....
bad company said:
There's logic in that sentence tho.
Bad Logic,with a pet you are insuring a life and a relationship as well as its flesh and bones.
So you can be a larry logic and say "get a new one" but if you are the sort of person that sees a dog as a commodity in the same way as you would see a cooker or a phone then why bother insuring in the first place?
"just get a new one"
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 23 August 11:06
I have all the insurances that IMO are really necessary, but it's worth keeping in mind that ALL insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying out.
Even if your legally parked car, with everything about it 100% legal, tyres, brakes, VED, MOT'd the day previously, was T Boned by a truck, with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as independent witnesses, you'd still have to be the seventh son of a seventh son before they'd even think of settling in your favour.
If your home was secured in a more superior fashion than Fort Knox, and somehow got burgled, there'd be a line in the small print that says your insurance wasn't valid because you were wearing black shoes that day instead of brown.
No, I've never had a claim refused, never even had a claim, but I have two separate family members who were royally shafted by their insurance companies, one having to eventually get the Ombudsman to help him get a settlement.
Even if your legally parked car, with everything about it 100% legal, tyres, brakes, VED, MOT'd the day previously, was T Boned by a truck, with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as independent witnesses, you'd still have to be the seventh son of a seventh son before they'd even think of settling in your favour.
If your home was secured in a more superior fashion than Fort Knox, and somehow got burgled, there'd be a line in the small print that says your insurance wasn't valid because you were wearing black shoes that day instead of brown.
No, I've never had a claim refused, never even had a claim, but I have two separate family members who were royally shafted by their insurance companies, one having to eventually get the Ombudsman to help him get a settlement.
Frank7 said:
I have all the insurances that IMO are really necessary, but it's worth keeping in mind that ALL insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying out.
Even if your legally parked car, with everything about it 100% legal, tyres, brakes, VED, MOT'd the day previously, was T Boned by a truck, with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as independent witnesses, you'd still have to be the seventh son of a seventh son before they'd even think of settling in your favour.
If your home was secured in a more superior fashion than Fort Knox, and somehow got burgled, there'd be a line in the small print that says your insurance wasn't valid because you were wearing black shoes that day instead of brown.
No, I've never had a claim refused, never even had a claim, but I have two separate family members who were royally shafted by their insurance companies, one having to eventually get the Ombudsman to help him get a settlement.
Whilst the last line may be true, the rest of it really is a load of old bEven if your legally parked car, with everything about it 100% legal, tyres, brakes, VED, MOT'd the day previously, was T Boned by a truck, with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as independent witnesses, you'd still have to be the seventh son of a seventh son before they'd even think of settling in your favour.
If your home was secured in a more superior fashion than Fort Knox, and somehow got burgled, there'd be a line in the small print that says your insurance wasn't valid because you were wearing black shoes that day instead of brown.
No, I've never had a claim refused, never even had a claim, but I have two separate family members who were royally shafted by their insurance companies, one having to eventually get the Ombudsman to help him get a settlement.
ks.I'd keep the pet insurance
Though sometimes, even that doesn't seem worth it. When our cat needed its teeth removing or else its jaw would eventually rot off, that got tossed out as "cosmetic" and "unnecessary". Yes because we'd deliberately put our cat, with its dickie heart, under a general anesthetic to have its teeth out to make her look better.
When we got another cat some years later, we insured it. But very very quickly this cat didn't seem right and on his first vet visit eventually got put down having been diagnosed with FIP (there is no cure). The insurance wouldn't pay out then either because it had happened within 2 weeks of taking the policy.
What? Essentially you aren't covered at all for the first two weeks! Imagine if that was how travel insurance worked or car insurance? When I checked back it seemed like many many pet insurance providers have the same clause.
Never buy toaster insurance and other "products" of that ilk. To be honest, from my experience, you just buy the cheapest decent appliances going. The fancy stuff seems to be utter trash. Case in point, the Kitchen Aid toaster and kettle my parents bought. They're on their second kettle and 3rd toaster! I suppose whilst Kitchen Aid stuff is dear, their warranty is decent and they won't quibble.
But you know, these two items cost about £300! (the kettle is £100+ and the Artisan toaster is about £180 at the moment!). I bought a decent £30 kettle and a similar toaster. Had them 7 years now. They still toast and boil water.
Though sometimes, even that doesn't seem worth it. When our cat needed its teeth removing or else its jaw would eventually rot off, that got tossed out as "cosmetic" and "unnecessary". Yes because we'd deliberately put our cat, with its dickie heart, under a general anesthetic to have its teeth out to make her look better.
When we got another cat some years later, we insured it. But very very quickly this cat didn't seem right and on his first vet visit eventually got put down having been diagnosed with FIP (there is no cure). The insurance wouldn't pay out then either because it had happened within 2 weeks of taking the policy.
What? Essentially you aren't covered at all for the first two weeks! Imagine if that was how travel insurance worked or car insurance? When I checked back it seemed like many many pet insurance providers have the same clause.
Never buy toaster insurance and other "products" of that ilk. To be honest, from my experience, you just buy the cheapest decent appliances going. The fancy stuff seems to be utter trash. Case in point, the Kitchen Aid toaster and kettle my parents bought. They're on their second kettle and 3rd toaster! I suppose whilst Kitchen Aid stuff is dear, their warranty is decent and they won't quibble.
But you know, these two items cost about £300! (the kettle is £100+ and the Artisan toaster is about £180 at the moment!). I bought a decent £30 kettle and a similar toaster. Had them 7 years now. They still toast and boil water.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 23 August 11:13
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Wednesday 23 August 11:29
Frank7 said:
I have all the insurances that IMO are really necessary, but it's worth keeping in mind that ALL insurance companies will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying out.
Even if your legally parked car, with everything about it 100% legal, tyres, brakes, VED, MOT'd the day previously, was T Boned by a truck, with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as independent witnesses, you'd still have to be the seventh son of a seventh son before they'd even think of settling in your favour.
If your home was secured in a more superior fashion than Fort Knox, and somehow got burgled, there'd be a line in the small print that says your insurance wasn't valid because you were wearing black shoes that day instead of brown.
No, I've never had a claim refused, never even had a claim, but I have two separate family members who were royally shafted by their insurance companies, one having to eventually get the Ombudsman to help him get a settlement.
Not true.Even if your legally parked car, with everything about it 100% legal, tyres, brakes, VED, MOT'd the day previously, was T Boned by a truck, with the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as independent witnesses, you'd still have to be the seventh son of a seventh son before they'd even think of settling in your favour.
If your home was secured in a more superior fashion than Fort Knox, and somehow got burgled, there'd be a line in the small print that says your insurance wasn't valid because you were wearing black shoes that day instead of brown.
No, I've never had a claim refused, never even had a claim, but I have two separate family members who were royally shafted by their insurance companies, one having to eventually get the Ombudsman to help him get a settlement.
The lesson I learned is never to buy insurance purely on price. I bought a cheap annual travel policy once and Mrs BC's mum died while we were away. The bar stewards tried every trick to try to avoid paying, it was a fight but we won in the end.
More recently we had a damp problem at home and I had bought reputable insurance - no problems, no hassle, all sorted.
Insurance/extended warranty for appliances is mostly a waste of money. About 5 or 6 years ago we bought a £200 washing machine and the store quoted us £70 for a 3 year warranty. Um, no thanks. Had mobile insurance for years until I realised I'm actually quite careful and tend to look after my stuff, so why waste the money.
Pet insurance is a bit harder as it tugs on the heart strings. We've recently dropped to just 3rd party liability insurance (~£30 a year) for our 9 year old lab. I worked out we've paid about £3k in insurance fees over the years, and the only claim was for £300 earlier this year for a minor op. If he has any issues in the future I guess we'll have to weigh up the cost with the potential gain/quality of life for him.
If we were to get another dog in the future I'd probably get full insurance for the first couple of years, and providing no underlying health issues emerged would then cancel and just put the money aside each month instead.
Pet insurance is a bit harder as it tugs on the heart strings. We've recently dropped to just 3rd party liability insurance (~£30 a year) for our 9 year old lab. I worked out we've paid about £3k in insurance fees over the years, and the only claim was for £300 earlier this year for a minor op. If he has any issues in the future I guess we'll have to weigh up the cost with the potential gain/quality of life for him.
If we were to get another dog in the future I'd probably get full insurance for the first couple of years, and providing no underlying health issues emerged would then cancel and just put the money aside each month instead.
bad company said:
Why not stop paying for the insurances and instead set up a standing order into a separate account at your bank to use when/if required?
That's exactly what I do, literally the only insurance I pay is car insurance, very begrudgingly because it is compulsory. But I have made a point to get insurance quotes, and put that money into a savings account every year. Have dipped into it twice, once for a phone, and again to repair the damages of a small fire. After 3 years I have a fairly comfortable amount in that account. The way I see it is if these companies are, not only turning a profit, but are vowing to pay out top dollar (have you ever seen how much a minor bodywork repair costs through insurance... Massively inflated) then handling it yourself surely is the only sane thing to do.
Edit: actually for the sake of full disclosure the one insurance I do pay is travel insurance to 'certain' countries, anything within the EU I don't bother but the US health system is supposedly a literal nightmare without insurance, potentially worth the £30.
Edited by caelite on Wednesday 23 August 11:22
Otispunkmeyer said:
I'd keep the pet insurance
Though sometimes, even that doesn't seem worth it. When our cat needed its teeth removing or else its jaw would eventually rot off, that got tossed out as "cosmetic" and "unnecessary". Yes because we'd deliberately put our cat, with its dickie heart, under a general anesthetic to have its teeth out to make her look better.
When we got another cat some years later, we insured it. But very very quickly this cat did seem right and on his first vet visit eventually got put down having been diagnosed with FIP (there is no cure). The insurance wouldn't pay out then either because it had happened within 2 weeks of taking the policy.
What? Essentially you aren't covered at all for the first two weeks! Imagine if that was how travel insurance worked or car insurance? When I checked back it seemed like many many pet insurance providers have the same clause.
Unfortunately that clause is because people would wait until their pet got sick before taking out insurance. Though sometimes, even that doesn't seem worth it. When our cat needed its teeth removing or else its jaw would eventually rot off, that got tossed out as "cosmetic" and "unnecessary". Yes because we'd deliberately put our cat, with its dickie heart, under a general anesthetic to have its teeth out to make her look better.
When we got another cat some years later, we insured it. But very very quickly this cat did seem right and on his first vet visit eventually got put down having been diagnosed with FIP (there is no cure). The insurance wouldn't pay out then either because it had happened within 2 weeks of taking the policy.
What? Essentially you aren't covered at all for the first two weeks! Imagine if that was how travel insurance worked or car insurance? When I checked back it seemed like many many pet insurance providers have the same clause.
We had cheapish pet insurance with Tesco and never had a problem getting them to pay out. One of our dogs had stiffness in her back and an X-ray showed shadowing in her spine which the vet suggested was possibly cancer of the spine. We were devastated and full of worry but the vet said a MRI scan would let us know exactly what the problem was but would not be cheap. Thankfully being insured we went for it straight away and in the end it was spondolosis rather than cancer. Having the insurance just means you don't have to worry about your pet not getting every possible cure/treatment.
Vets may know you have insurance and throw everything but the kitchen sink at your pet but if that means a cure and a healthy pet I can live with that.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff