New York City
Washington DC Metro
Northern New Jersey
open house planner
manhattan condo market index
submit your listings
Benefits of FREE account
Become an Insider
post your listings
Does anyone know if it's possible to get liability-only renter's insurance, with no coverage for apartment contents? Most of the quotes I've seen are for contents and liability combined, with the liability part comprising about 1/3 of the total cost.
I have no interest in insurance contents, as I can afford to replace them many times over if they disappear. Thus, I'd love to get a standalone liability policy if anyone offers one.
Apologies for putting this in wrong forum; it looks like there is no way to move or delete the thread.
Try talking to Bullen Insurance Group in nearby Nassau County. Most agencies are not set up to provide this. My needs were not identical, but I needed a liability only coverage for a property and Bullen found a solution. Others tried to screw me. (or were incompetent).
My apartment was robbed recently and having rental insurance brought me so much relief I cannot state strongly enough how important renters insurance is, including liability.
I am sorry to hear about your experience.
Not to pry, but do you have any security tips you might share given your experience?
I am in a small quiet building and have worried about a potential break in - especially if we happened to be home.
i did a very stupid thing...i was leaving for work when my super knocked and said two workmen (outside conractors) needed to go into my wall to fix a pipe..I explained I was leaving but they said it was an emergency and I left them there...I didn't notice anything missing for several weeks until I went to put on some jewelry I rarely wore and the case was there but the inside had nothing left.
My advice...don't let anyone into your apartment no matter what the emergency unless you're available to stay in the apartment.
If you can afford to replace the contents many times over, then why sweat the premium?
julia, good jewelry should be insured regardless of rental insurance. good jewelry should also be in a locked regular safe if you rent and wall safe if you own. VERY good jewelry should only be taken out of the safe at the bank when you wear it. don't beat yourself up about it. forget it. buy some fakes, they make excellent fakes these days.
jewelry is a crazy thing, and yet another indicator of how wildly different new york is today than even 15-20 years ago. i don't think i'd seen a ring smaller than 2 cts my mom friends, and they were pretty regular people. many women have bigger stones and just walk around pushing a stroller through the park like it's nothing. i'm not even sure most people realize how much stones that size cost it's more than most people's house. and no one even blinks. madness i tellya!!!! i don't think these people are gonna fare very well should things really turn south.
If things turn really south I doubt many of these women will be in the city for the long-term.
100th St down in Manhattan has turned very soft... don't expect all upper class folk to hang around if all criminal hell breaks loose.
What makes you think that criminal hell is breaking lose in Manhattan?
I don't think it will, but I am just saying if it does...
Travelers allows you to do $1M liability with $15K personal property and a $2500 deductible. My premiums are $29 for the personal property, $68 for the liability, and $30 for other required crud. Then there is some overall -$14 security credit, which I'm guessing primarily offsets the non-liability portions. It was close enough to liability-only for me.
Well memito, things aren't so great in Suffolk County today. I missed this story earlier:
Umbrella policies require that you have a base homeowners (or renters) and auto policy. They are also much more expensive than liability on renters insurance: auto accidents are a much more likely trigger for umbrella policies (maybe 70-80% if I remember correctly), so they are priced as such.
Why would you not want to insure contents?
This is a little like ordering a hamburger with the works, hold the beef pattie.
On average, you lose money when you buy insurance. You have to: the insurance company needs to pay for its employees, cost of business, and some profits. So why do you take on this money-losing proposition? Because you personally cannot handle the downside risk of rare events.
Suppose you have $50K of crud in your home, $50K of other assets to your name, and save $10K a year. Is it worth paying $100 for personal property coverage knowing that on average you'll be returned only 30 cents on the dollar? Probably: it's too large a risk for you to handle. Now what if you have $3 million to your name and are saving $300K a year? Not so much: you probably risk $50K every day or week on your investments, and there is more uncertainty on whether you'll be doing $50K more or less surgeries this year or whatever.
On the other hand, a million-dollar liability suit will probably make a dent. So you insure for that, well knowing that it is a money-losing proposition that is worth the reduction in your personal risk.
Let me put it another way for you, NYCMatt. Why don't you insure against losing your subway card?
>inonada: Actually, if you pay for replacement value, you GET replacement value, not depreciated. And, my insurance policy automatically increases the replacement value by a certain percentage each year.
Huh, ph41? I understand the concept of replacement value, but I'm not sure how it relates to what I was saying.
Well, if you have $100K worth of "crud" in your home, and it all gets wiped out by fire or flood after 10 years of insuring for replacement value, I would think you're getting back more than "only 30 cents on the dollar"
inonada, can you now explain the 'long tail' and 'black swan events'? This is so educational, you are truly a big help to NYCMatt playing the streeteasy idiot.
You're missing the point, ph41. My phrase for what you would call "fabulous items carefully procured and whose replacement value is $100K" is "$100K of crud". If you want to say it's actually $300K replacement value on $100K of depreciated items, the insurance company is more than happy to comply as they make more money the larger an amount you insure. I'd call that "$300K of crud".
Now if you personally cannot handle spending $300K after a fire to replace your stuff (say your liquid assets are $500K), then getting insurance makes sense. However, if you have $20 million, then what's the point? You have made some personal choices on how much stuff you own vs. how much money you have sitting around. These choices do not necessarily match the choices of others.
So I guess that all those CA homes in high risk areas are not insured by their multi-millionare owners?
Are you as much of an idiot as you sound.
Yes, I can afford to replace all my "stuff", but, for the annual price of the insurance, it makes no sense to go without the insurance. Actually, when a vintage chandelier fell from the ceiling, also ruining the dining table underneath, the insurance allowed me to travel to Milan to look for a replacement.
You look on insurance as most people do - a ridiculous expense. Ridiculous until something unfortunate happens, at which point you'll be upset you were too cheap to protect yourself.
This actually just came up in terms of travel insurance. I was supposed to go on a 3 week trip to Turkey. Unfortunately, emergency surgery 2 weeks prior to the trip made it unwise for me to go, so, now, $15,000-20,000 out of pocket (at least the $4,000 airfare can be credited to a later trip). At least my husband did go (which I urged him to). The travel insurance would have been a tiny percentage of the cost of the trip.
Yes, I can afford the loss - but will probably take out the damned insurance for expensive trips going forward.
>These choices do not necessarily match the choices of others.
What a shocking revelation from the guy who responds to a poster asking about a $1800 first floor studio with a comparison to someone renting out a $23,000 apartment.
For a person with a $20 million net worth, there's a difference between insuring a $10 million home and $100K in contents. You do understand that on average, you lose money by insuring right? Is there a dollar value at which it no longer makes sense for you to get into a money-losing transaction because it's not worth the risk offset to you? It's obviously not $100K for you, nor is it $10K. But how about $1K, or $100, or $10, or $1? There is some number for you, and this number is related to your wealth, your liquid assets, and your general level of risk aversion.
Look, I'm explaining insurance 101 here. NYCMatt asked why someone (like the OP) would skip personal property while getting liability, I explained it. Just as a multi-million dollar umbrella policy might not make sense for a guy with $50K in assets, a $50K personal property policy might not make sense for someone with multiple millions in assets. It's not like I'm saying the latter shouldn't get the much more expensive umbrella policy, so obviously I'm not saying "all insurance is a waste".
All that said, if you choose to purchase every insurance policy known to man without applying some level of risk analysis relative to your income / wealth / risk aversion, that is fine by me. I am a shareholder in a few insurance companies, and we appreciate all your business large & small. I'm simply trying to explain the rational choices others might make on similar decisions.
>I am a shareholder in a few insurance companies, and we appreciate all your business large & small.
Translation: Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah.
ph, hope you're feeling better.
Thanks Ali - feeling almost 100%
"at which point you'll be upset you were too cheap to protect yourself"
Are you upset with yourself for not purchasing the travel insurance? Do you feel like you had made a poor decision, outcome aside?
Glad to hear you are feeling better.
ino, I do use a level of risk analysis in my insurance purchases. Long ago stopped insuring furs (that was definitely a sucker bet) and insure only 2 pieces of jewelry, for which the premium after 20 years would equal perhaps 20%(or less) of replacement value.
and ino, we travel a lot, all over the world, and guess we felt "bullet-proof" until now. Well, the gods laughed at that one.
Though, last year did get Medjet insurance (after hearing about a friend's overseas accident/hospital nightmare).
Yes, I am sorry I did not get travel insurance, though I am more sorry I missed the trip, which we signed up for a year ago. And it won't be available again until next year, but since my husband will have been to those sites, don't think we'll be going next year.
Thanks for the good wishes.
ph41, if you don't mind sharing and it is certainly in no way an appropriate question, but what's value of the 2 piece you have insured? you could even describe them in very general terms and i could kind of ball park it. just very curious.
i think i'm insuring too much stuff. great, another sprinkle of seasoning to my paranoia soup. the paranoia of being too paranoid. can't win.
ph41 is absolutely correct..no matter how much money you have and the fact you can replace everything it doesn't make sense not to get insurance.
she does make sense, but she only insures 2 pieces of jewelry. and she's a rich older lady, she's got good stuff.
"For a person with a $20 million net worth, there's a difference between insuring a $10 million home and $100K in contents. You do understand that on average, you lose money by insuring right? Is there a dollar value at which it no longer makes sense for you to get into a money-losing transaction because it's not worth the risk offset to you?"
I have $200K of insurance that guarantees replacement value that costs me $200/year.
I suppose I'll reach the break-even point after 1,000 years.
lucille - as discretion is the better part of valor (especially here on SE) all I will say is that one piece is my engagement ring (and it is gorgeous) and the other piece is a very unusual diamond solitaire pendant.
And, just to clarify, the "41" in my SE ph41 name, is NOT my birth year.
we knew that---its the size of your head.
ok. i take back every derisive numbers monkey comment. monkeys are very important and so are numbers. engagement ring and the hope diamond aside, what about things in the 5k range? is it stupid to include those?
"Why would you not want to insure contents?
This is a little like ordering a hamburger with the works, hold the beef pattie."
Very illogical, and a bad analogy. Insurance is *not* the meat.
In the end, it depends on how much it costs, likelihood of loss, and how much you get back. Without the numbers, the conclusion is bogus.
Think of those insurance policies at bestbuy... numbers show they're a waste in the majority of cases.
"In the end, it depends on how much it costs, likelihood of loss, and how much you get back. Without the numbers, the conclusion is bogus."
thank you. now i remember why i insured those things. because i wear them.
That was funny. For swe - numbers matter. For Lucille - emotions. Since its jewelry, a combo makes sense.
Columbiacounty, how much is your life insurance?
That all sucks, ph41. Obviously, emergency sucks most, then missing the trip, then the money. But I don't know if you should sweat the travel insurance if the loss is manageable. It sounds like this is the first trip you've ever missed in your life, out of let's say 100 trips. Given that trip insurance costs 5% or so, having the insurance would've probably cost you 5 full trips. Plus the ability to invest those proceeds.
"I have $200K of insurance that guarantees replacement value that costs me $200/year. I suppose I'll reach the break-even point after 1,000 years."
Home fires caused $7.6 billion in damage in 2009 in the US, and that includes everything (home and contents). With 100 million homes, it works out to $76 per home. Assuming $250K insured per home (actual home and contents) at a rate of 0.1% for the fire portion, works out to $250 per home.
I'm not suggesting that you don't insure as I imagine a $200K loss would be a big deal for you. Just giving a sense of how the numbers work out.
>Plus the ability to invest those proceeds.
Because over the years, she would have saved $1000 per year, and if she invested in Microsoft or Apple, today she would have...
Give us a break. Go back to explaining how those renting a $23,000 per month apartment are the same as those renting a $1,800 studio apartment.
" For swe - numbers matter. For Lucille - emotions"
in the context of The Great Experiment though, "emotions" won over empirical evidence and arrived at the correct conclusion faster. that's pretty neat actually.
>inonada - just realized from the "bear" thread that you have never owned real estate. This may be why you think insurance is just for liability and contents . Actually, we also have insurance for "improvements" as a coop's (and condo's) master insurance would basically cover only walls, ceilings, hvac and basic everything else. Just read all the threads on SE about gut renovation costs and insuring for possible disasters in light of annual premium cost over a 10- 20 year period is peanuts compared to renovation cost after fire or flood.
perhaps you might want to re-read the title of this thread.
You're preaching to the choir on that one, ph41. I'm with you on homeowner's insurance, and I have had countless arguments here about that with insurance being an important part of owning beyond the building's master insurance. Say we're talking about a nicely-done 2000 sq ft place costing $600K to renovate. People have different tastes and preferences, but someone in that space could only have $60K of contents. It probably costs $1200 annually to insure the interior an $120 for the contents. The renter only pays the $120. If the apt is worth $2.1M, say, I'd guess that something like $4200 of the annual maintenance is going towards the master insurance.
So an owner living in that $2.1M space is looking at a $660K hit in case of a fire, which has a 0.05% probability or so annually. I think a net worth of $20M could be able to shrug that kind of rare-event hit off. With the renter, it's only a $60K hit, so proportionately a $2M net worth is enough.
They really can't take a hit of that magnitude financially, so they insure.
As CC alludes, the concentration of risk for a renter is nowhere as great as an owner with the same level of wealth living in the same place, hence they have different insurance needs.
Ph41, one thing I do not know that maybe you could answer. It is my understanding that in suburbia, the mortgage holder requires the homeowner to have insurance. With coops/condos, what kind of requirements are there from the lender's perspective beyond the master insurance?
FYI, I had thought there was no master insurance & that the unit owner had to insure the full amount themselves until some folks from SE (printer?) taught me otherwise.
Hey CC , still stuck up there in the boonies?
I thought for sure you'd be going on vacation with AR. Oh wait, "hubby" didn't want you tagging along? Though I'm sure AR pleaded on your behalf.
inonada- interesting question . I actually went and looked at our mortgage documents and couldn't find any home insurance requirement. Actually , the mortgage document doesn't even require proof of a master policy for a coop. Specifically required proof of master policy only for a condominium.
As to your assumption that anyone owning a $2,000,000 apartment in NY must have 20 million in assets-- that is really a skewed and somewhat inane statement, as many people here on SE, with apartments at that price point would, I am sure, tell you.
do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just trying to be difficult? he clearly stated the asset requirement to "shrug off a loss" not to buy the apartment in the first place.
But ino, it is possible that the bank might have required proof of the coop's insurance as part of the initial application for the mortgage. Can't check for that as we've discarded all but the actual mortgage document.
Thanks for checking, ph41.
Yes, I don't expect many $2M apt owners to have a $20M net worth or be able to take a $650K hit in case of a fire. On the other hand, it is very plausible for someone spending a similar equivalent monthly on rent (say $10K) to have a $2M net worth and be able to take a $50K hit.
My posting assemblage was off on that prior post. In meant this in reference to the typical $2M owner's ability to withstand a $650K hit:
"They really can't take a hit of that magnitude financially, so they insure."
about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
now i've seen everything
Lucille, you are still young. You haven't seen it all just yet.
By the way, where is columbiacounty? I heard there is a recall on Rollators because of faulty brakes, which means danger on hills.
>Lucille re: why I insure only 2 pieces of jewelry: I am pretty sure my apartment will not be robbed (but I don't think I'd feel that way if I lived in a house). Additionally I have a very secure fireproof safe, one for which Chubb insurance has given me a credit on the jewelry insurance. I take normal precautions when wearing jewelry (I don't wear necklaces, expensive bracelets on the street unless they are covered in some way. That being said I wear my engagement and wedding band every day. If I feel at all worried walking somewhere, and I walk around the city a lot, I simply turn the diamond around, so it faces the palm of my hand. And I've done this even while traveling, though left the ring at home when we travel in mainland China, Middle East and South America.
P.S I don't keep things I wear a lot in the safe , but in drawers with little locks that the previous owner of the apartment had built in to a closet, and I only lock those when there will be someone doing work in the apartment, or when we're traveling.
Hope this helps you figure out your jewelry insurance requirement.
I actually bought a "good" fake, then never used it as I decided I didn't want to get mugged for a damned fake.
Went several years before insuring the ring, but after having some bad dreams about losing it decided my peace of mind was worth the cost of the insurance (which is quite expensive).
I don't worry enough about my other jewelry (for the reasons I first stated) to pay the hefty rates for the insurance.
columbiacounty? please insert your nasty comment here now:
And Lucille, your comment about my insuring only 2 pieces actually got me to thinking about my rationale for that . So thank you for getting me to examine the thought process:)
columbiacounty, your nasty comment is needed now. Or did the cell tower for Columbia County get hit by lightening?
ph41, sounds good
i insure things more out of fear of losing them than getting mugged. but i'd lose my head if it wasn't attached, so probably doesn't make sense for everyone.
hb, i've seen stuff. how do you know what i've seen.
We are the same person, remember?
no, silly, we're separate personalities of one mentally ill person. we don't actually even know eachother!
I'm not mentally ill, though I have played it on television.
Where's columbiacounty tonight? Did he get caught in traffic on the Taconic?
let me call his nurse. i think she's abusing him.
so..once again penthouse lady points out the value of her jewelry and her extensive world travel. and along the way, our resident nut job engages in its nightly soliloquy.
hey! we're not crazy! can't you read? we're gifted.
Guess CC couldn't accompany AR on her extensive European travels, as he's posting here. We all know AR can't post when she's on her extensive vacations, so I guess CC feels he's got to carry the flag.
Or maybe CC just likes being known as the crazy old coot turned troll of SE.
about 22 months ago
Member since: Jan 2009
ignore this person
>so..once again penthouse lady points out the value of her jewelry and her extensive world travel. and along the way, our resident nut job engages in its nightly soliloquy.
I think those Hoveround commercials are annoying.