Insurance on 2nd hand items

PatchTuesday

PatchTuesday

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
2,683
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Cape Town
Greetings good peeps

Sorry that this is an Outsurance specific thread,it wasn't my intention but its the company I'm leaning towards for the below.

I'm considering getting Outsurance Out&About cover for some of my higher value items I usually travel with.
Reading through the policy documents supplied,it seems if an individual item if over the replacement value of the general cover,the item has to be specified and value declared.

I contacted Outsurance regarding pre-owned items,where for example a purchase is made from a private owner and no receipt/POP is provided, I was advised to cover for the full value of the item as they only replace the item to the value specified.An example of this would be purchasing a 2 year old DSLR camera from a mate but he has no idea where the packaging with the slip is.

How does one go about proving ownership of said item in the event of loss/theft,or is this not required a side from the affidavit/statement?

Does anyone have experience with this?I have receipts for some of the stuff,but not everything I'd like to insure.
Would photos of the items be sufficient or is it really as easy as saying "I own something that went missing/stolen please replace"

What are your recommendations for keeping track of any and all insured items?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Hey,

You really don't need the slip, I keep the slips but tons of ppl just toss them. Out and about is likely just full coverage for a specific item, my camera, wife's rings, ipads are covered by this.

I always provide the current replacement value not the amount you paid. For example the ipad was bought on the ebucks store at 40% off but if its stolen I want it replaced in full.

You will just need to provide an affidavit should the item be stolen.

So here is an example

If your item is valued at R10k but you paid R5k and insured for R5k and paid R5k premiums (R50 for example) you will only get R5K.

If your item is valued at R10k but you paid R5k and insured for R10k and paid R10k premiums (R100 for example) you will get 10K.

So you will need to make the call do you want your money back the R5K or the ability to replace the item R10K.

The camera I refer to about I paid R3500 on massive discount but is insured at its current replacement value of R13.5K
 
Snyper564 said:
Hey,

You really don't need the slip, I keep the slips but tons of ppl just toss them. Out and about is likely just full coverage for a specific item, my camera, wife's rings, ipads are covered by this.

I always provide the current replacement value not the amount you paid. For example the ipad was bought on the ebucks store at 40% off but if its stolen I want it replaced in full.

You will just need to provide an affidavit should the item be stolen.

So here is an example

If your item is valued at R10k but you paid R5k and insured for R5k and paid R5k premiums (R50 for example) you will only get R5K.

If your item is valued at R10k but you paid R5k and insured for R10k and paid R10k premiums (R100 for example) you will get 10K.

So you will need to make the call do you want your money back the R5K or the ability to replace the item R10K.

The camera I refer to about I paid R3500 on massive discount but is insured at its current replacement value of R13.5K
Click to expand...
Ah thanks man, that really clears it up!

Speaking to the sales reps kind of helps but they are very smooth talking and even though I asked about specific instances, they ran through the whole spheel so it was a bit harder for me to extract my answer from there lol

Your answer and example is what I was actually looking for
 
animehero said:
Ah thanks man, that really clears it up!

Speaking to the sales reps kind of helps but they are very smooth talking and even though I asked about specific instances, they ran through the whole spheel so it was a bit harder for me to extract my answer from there lol

Your answer and example is what I was actually looking for
Click to expand...
No problem :)
 
Always have some kind of proof that you owned the item.
When my housemate/landlord claimed for our stuff, Santam paid him R1000 for his stolen golf shoes, but because he didn't have proof of ownership of his golf clubs, they just paid the max of R1500.

Later, when my home was broken into, Auto & General's assessor asked a bunch of questions about how my PS3 worked, quite obviously he had doubts about whether or not a 30 year old man really owns a PS3. When I called him out on it the questions stopped.
 
3WA said:
Take a photo that shows the serial number and model if possible, and then list the serial number on the insurance policy.
Click to expand...

This. Also, if you buy a phone with no box you can take a photo of the phone displaying the IMEI and serial number together with like your business card or ID (to show it's your phone) which would be considered valid proof of ownership.

While you're at it take a photo of every room in your house from at least 2 or 3 different angles showing all the items of value in the room and upload it to google photos/iCloud or whatever you use for cloud storage.

When you're done take a photo of the contents of each wardrobe and cupboard.

If you still have the time, do an inventory room by room with your expected replacement value and send to the insurer/broker to note on your policy.

I've seen too many claims where the likes of Auto and General (and associated Telesure companies) and Outsurance take advantage and bully their clients into accepting offers of ~50% of the sum insured when their homes burn down.
 
Snyper564 said:
If your item is valued at R10k but you paid R5k and insured for R5k and paid R5k premiums (R50 for example) you will only get R5K.

If your item is valued at R10k but you paid R5k and insured for R10k and paid R10k premiums (R100 for example) you will get 10K.

So you will need to make the call do you want your money back the R5K or the ability to replace the item R10K.
Click to expand...
It's worse, if the replacement value of an item is R10k and you only insure it for R5k then you were only covering half(50%) of the actual real world risk as per the underwriters exposure, hence they will only pay out R2500 which is 50% of R5000. It's a bit wonky and not easy to wrap your head around but after a while it will make sense.
 
airborne said:
It's worse, if the replacement value of an item is R10k and you only insure it for R5k then you were only covering half(50%) of the actual real world risk as per the underwriters exposure, hence they will only pay out R2500 which is 50% of R5000. It's a bit wonky and not easy to wrap your head around but after a while it will make sense.
Click to expand...
Not correct, if you have a total loss they will pay R5,000 being 50% of the R10,000 (subject to excesses, and other policy conditions)

If you had a R5,000 (partial) loss on the same item, they would only pay R2,500 as you've only insured half of the value.
 
the eskimo said:
Not correct, if you have a total loss they will pay R5,000 being 50% of the R10,000 (subject to excesses, and other policy conditions)

If you had a R5,000 (partial) loss on the same item, they would only pay R2,500 as you've only insured half of the value.
Click to expand...

False, though I dearly wish that was the case but it most definitely is not.

Phone your insurance and ask for yourself.
 
the eskimo said:
en.wikipedia.org

Condition of average - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Don't worry about what some wiki page says about insurance worry what your Sa insurer says.

Actually I'm hoping you are correct because it's a preferable situation for the insured. I did a fair bit of research into being under insured in terms of Sa insurance and they penalise both for being under insured and for not sufficiently covering the risk.

Because if you cover a R10k item for R5k and get paid out R5k after a total loss you are theoretically getting your monies worth in terms of the premuim paid but the insurer is getting short changed because their risk exposure was on a R10k item and not a R5k item.
 
Last edited:
airborne said:
Don't worry about what some wiki page says about insurance worry what your Sa insurer says.

Actually I'm hoping you are correct because it's a preferable situation for the insured. I did a fair bit of research into being under insured in terms of Sa insurance and they penalise both for being under insured and for not sufficiently covering the risk.

Because if you cover a R10k item for R5k and get paid out R5k after a total loss you are theoretically getting your monies worth in terms of the premuim paid but the insurer is getting short changed because their risk exposure was on a R10k item and not a R5k item.
Click to expand...

I've worked at 3 different SA insurers so I hope I know what I'm talking about :cool:

Insurers charge higher rates (as a % of insured value) on items of lesser value than they do on higher values, so this (to an extent) offsets the fact that a R5k item is more prone to loss than a R10k item because of the nature of the risk.

Check the rates vodacom charges for cellphone insurance here as an example:
mybroadband.co.za

How much it costs to insure your smartphone in South Africa

MyBroadband compares the smartphone insurance pricing from South African mobile operators.
mybroadband.co.za mybroadband.co.za
 
the eskimo said:
I've worked at 3 different SA insurers so I hope I know what I'm talking about :cool:

Insurers charge higher rates (as a % of insured value) on items of lesser value than they do on higher values, so this (to an extent) offsets the fact that a R5k item is more prone to loss than a R10k item because of the nature of the risk.

Check the rates vodacom charges for cellphone insurance here as an example:
mybroadband.co.za

How much it costs to insure your smartphone in South Africa

MyBroadband compares the smartphone insurance pricing from South African mobile operators.
mybroadband.co.za mybroadband.co.za
Click to expand...

I can only hope you know what you are talking about, I'm not convinced though. All else being equal higher value means higher risk there is no getting around it and I highly doubt an underwriter will take that extra risk on the chin without penalising the insured.

Nevermind that under insuring can be taken to much higher levels, insure an item for R50k with a replacement value of R100k or R500k when it's actually worth R1mill.

Basically what you are claiming is insurers are happy to insure customers goods at what ever value the customer pleases and come claim time there will be no penalty whatsoever(other than the payout being at the insured value and not at replacement value) despite there being misrepresentation of the value/risk.
 
Last edited:
airborne said:
Nevermind that under insuring can be taken to much higher levels, insure an item for R50k with a replacement value of R100k or R500k when it's actually worth R1mill.

Basically what you are claiming is insurers are happy to insure customers goods at what ever value the customer pleases and come claim time there will be no penalty whatsoever(other than the payout being at the insured value and not at replacement value) despite there being misrepresentation of the value/risk.
Click to expand...

You would only ever get paid up to the lesser of the replacement/trade/market/retail (depending on your policy) value or the insured value (unless you insured an item on an agreed value basis - more expensive and only available on items where the market value is more difficult to determine such as classic cars or art).

Deliberate misrepresentation is a whole different issue and can have a whole host of consequences depending on the circumstances.
 
the eskimo said:
You would only ever get paid up to the lesser of the replacement/trade/market/retail (depending on your policy) value or the insured value (unless you insured an item on an agreed value basis - more expensive and only available on items where the market value is more difficult to determine such as classic cars or art).

Deliberate misrepresentation is a whole different issue and can have a whole host of consequences depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

You sidestepped the question.

I'll rephrase it, are insurers happy to insure goods at a value decided by the customer which is well under replacement value and come claim time there will be no penalty whatsoever, other than the payout being at the insured value and not at the real replacement value. That despite there being misrepresentation on the policy of the value of the insured goods and hence the risk?
 
the eskimo said:
You would only ever get paid up to the lesser of the replacement/trade/market/retail (depending on your policy) value or the insured value (unless you insured an item on an agreed value basis - more expensive and only available on items where the market value is more difficult to determine such as classic cars or art).

Deliberate misrepresentation is a whole different issue and can have a whole host of consequences depending on the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Listen to @airborne

This is a fact. If you over insure your items, you do not get that value.

If you under-insure your items, they will do exactly what has been said before. Measure what you insured for overall, and then apply a reduction percentage to the value they pay out.
 
But we do need to expand on this. We are not talking about specific items insured.

But, if you have general household insurance, and claim on this, as in a burglary - then they look at how much you insured for versus the entire value of the house.

A friend at work found this out the hard way.
 
Hemi300c said:
It's called the Average clause.
Click to expand...

They apply the averaging and then reduce the payout by the percentage of the risk under insured.

That is done because if you are insuring an item with a replacement value of R10k for R5k worth of cover then only 50% of the risk is covered.

In basic lingo it's like saying I want to insure this item at a value of R5000 and I only want to cover 50% of the risk, ie R2500. So if a total loss occurs they can only payout max R2500.

I want the choice to under insure, I don't want more cover than I deem necessary, nor pay sky high premuims for something unessential. I'm not particularly interested in getting full replacement value on all items I own. But when I found out about the above then it's obvious that under insuring isn't feasible.

To be honest I'd gladly be proven wrong about this matter because I'd love to be able to under insure/set my own replacement value on things that I insure.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X