Denied by Jewelers Mutual

[icebergslm]

Hey guys, I had a question about insuring a watch. I recently picked up my first Rolex, a dark rhodium op39 that I’m absolutely in love with. I didn’t want to put it on my home owner’s policy so I contacted jewelers mutual as suggested by a number of members here.
I received a denial from them stating nature of item, lack of security, and credit review. It’s a $5700 watch, hardly a Lange Zeitwerk, no I don’t have a security system, but I didn’t see that listed as a requirement for insurance, and my credit score is in the 700s.
Has this happened to anyone here? What would be your next move, in terms of getting insurance on your timepiece?

[Chadridv]

Very strange! I modified the mortgage on my house a few years back and my credit took a huge hit cause of it. Not long after I insuring multiple watches as well as my wife's wedding jewelery, with no problem.

I heard there is an insurance score which is separate of credit. Have you had many insurance claims in the past?

[icebergslm]

^ nope, no insurance claims

[function12]

Just call your current home owners and ask for a jewelry policy. Mine through State Farm is way cheaper than jewelers mutual. I have almost $100k in a jewelry policy. All items above 5k have to have an appraisal. Zero deductible and a replacement policy. Since it is a separate policy, claims on my home owners or jewelry will not affect each other.

[Bigblu10]

Originally Posted by function12

Just call your current home owners and ask for a jewelry policy. Mine through State Farm is way cheaper than jewelers mutual. I have almost $100k in a jewelry policy. All items above 5k have to have an appraisal. Zero deductible and a replacement policy. Since it is a separate policy, claims on my home owners or jewelry will not affect each other.

This is the way to go. I have full replacement value on my PM Rolex for 600 a year. Just had to submit an appraisal for the watch.

[WhiskeyKoffee]

You never, ever, ever want to make a claim on a homeowner's policy unless you have a catastrophic loss. Always, always get a separate policy for your Rolex. I went through USAA. They approved me without anything more than my own description of my Rolex and the insured dollar amount. My wife's ring is insured through Chubb. They are more expensive, but will write a check (instead of searching for a replacement) if her ring were to be lost or stolen.

[smabe123]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyKoffee

You never, ever, ever want to make a claim on a homeowner's policy unless you have a catastrophic loss. Always, always get a separate policy for your Rolex. I went through USAA. They approved me without anything more than my own description of my Rolex and the insured dollar amount. My wife's ring is insured through Chubb. They are more expensive, but will write a check (instead of searching for a replacement) if her ring were to be lost or stolen.

Can you expand on this? Why wouldn't I want to insure through my home owners insurance? I need to get my watch insured this week, so this thread hit at a great time.

[WhiskeyKoffee]

Originally Posted by smabe123

Can you expand on this? Why wouldn't I want to insure through my home owners insurance? I need to get my watch insured this week, so this thread hit at a great time.

Clark Howard and other consumer experts constantly speak about this. Generally speaking, your house is the largest and most important investment of your life. For the most part, one claim will result in your insurance company cancelling your policy, which leaves you desperately searching for any company that will take you, most of which have huge premiums and lessor coverage. Sure, this is what you deal with if your house burns down, floods, or otherwise suffers a catastrophic loss. However, this is not what you want to deal with because your lawnmower threw a rock at your neighbor's car, your watch was stolen, or a hail storm damaged a few shingles on your roof.

I'm not talking about a completely separate plan. I'm talking about insuring your Rolex through your homeowner's policy. Just don't do it. Get a completely separate and independent plan. Google it if you don't believe me. Check Clark Howard's site. You never, ever make a claim against your home unless you suffered a catastrophic loss.

[themast]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyKoffee

Clark Howard and other consumer experts constantly speak about this. Generally speaking, your house is the largest and most important investment of your life. For the most part, one claim will result in your insurance company cancelling your policy, which leaves you desperately searching for any company that will take you, most of which have huge premiums and lessor coverage. Sure, this is what you deal with if your house burns down, floods, or otherwise suffers a catastrophic loss. However, this is not what you want to deal with because your lawnmower threw a rock at your neighbor's car, your watch was stolen, or a hail storm damaged a few shingles on your roof.

I'm not talking about a completely separate plan. I'm talking about insuring your Rolex through your homeowner's policy. Just don't do it. Get a completely separate and independent plan. Google it if you don't believe me. Check Clark Howard's site. You never, ever make a claim against your home unless you suffered a catastrophic loss.

I never understood this.

I did a claim with my homeowner insurance for a bathroom leak damage a few years back. The claim was about $850 and I had a $500 deductible. I read some of the stories you are citing but I made the claim nontheless because otherwise is nonsensical in my mind to have insurance and not using it.

As far as I can tell, nothing happened to my insurance premium, my capability to obtain insurance on a new (to me) vehicle or for a new house subsequent to that claim. So I really do not understand this theory of not making claims for minor damages.

[WhiskeyKoffee]

Originally Posted by themast

I never understood this.

I did a claim with my homeowner insurance for a bathroom leak damage a few years back. The claim was about $850 and I had a $500 deductible. I read some of the stories you are citing but I made the claim nontheless because otherwise is nonsensical in my mind to have insurance and not using it.

As far as I can tell, nothing happened to my insurance premium, my capability to obtain insurance on a new (to me) vehicle or for a new house subsequent to that claim. So I really do not understand this theory of not making claims for minor damages.

You were lucky and your experience is definitely not the norm. I was with State Farm for 30 years, never had a claim, and have a credit rating of 840. My riding lawn mower slung a rock into my neighbor's van's windshield. I was stupid enough to make a claim for $600. State Farm cancelled me later that same month. Just research it online ... You NEVER, EVER make a homeowner's claim for a non catastrophic loss.

[locutus49]

I disagree completely. We have had homeowners with USAA for over 30 years, and used it a couple times on the house (storm damage, microwave getting zapped by power surge during storm), and it was no problem and they did not raise our rates.

Also, both our Rolexes (mine a platinum Daytona) are listed under a USAA homeowners rider, and I am confident they will pay it we lose one or whatever.

Experts may disagree, but I use my own critical thinking in making these decisions. Housing experts have been wrong about many things.

Originally Posted by WhiskeyKoffee

Clark Howard and other consumer experts constantly speak about this. Generally speaking, your house is the largest and most important investment of your life. For the most part, one claim will result in your insurance company cancelling your policy, which leaves you desperately searching for any company that will take you, most of which have huge premiums and lessor coverage. Sure, this is what you deal with if your house burns down, floods, or otherwise suffers a catastrophic loss. However, this is not what you want to deal with because your lawnmower threw a rock at your neighbor's car, your watch was stolen, or a hail storm damaged a few shingles on your roof.

I'm not talking about a completely separate plan. I'm talking about insuring your Rolex through your homeowner's policy. Just don't do it. Get a completely separate and independent plan. Google it if you don't believe me. Check Clark Howard's site. You never, ever make a claim against your home unless you suffered a catastrophic loss.

[michaelodonnell123]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyKoffee

You never, ever, ever want to make a claim on a homeowner's policy unless you have a catastrophic loss. Always, always get a separate policy for your Rolex. I went through USAA. They approved me without anything more than my own description of my Rolex and the insured dollar amount. My wife's ring is insured through Chubb. They are more expensive, but will write a check (instead of searching for a replacement) if her ring were to be lost or stolen.

Not true. The key is that they must have a documented history of multiple losses in order to justify the cancellation. I have made a couple of 'non-catastrophic claims in the last eleven years and my rates did not go up nor did I get cancelled. You are giving out some very misleading information here.

[WhiskeyKoffee]

Originally Posted by michaelodonnell123

Not true. The key is that they must have a documented history of multiple losses in order to justify the cancellation. I have made a couple of 'non-catastrophic claims in the last eleven years and my rates did not go up nor did I get cancelled. You are giving out some very misleading information here.

No I'm not. Clark Howard is a consumer expert and he talks about it regularly. Check out this link where he explains that homeowner's insurance is often "use it and lose it" and why you should never make a non catastrophic claim. He gives several examples of consumers that had their policies terminated because they made a claim on their ring or their earrings. Maybe then you will see that YOU are giving out the misleading information. I'll wait for your apology .....

http://clark.com/insurance/reasons-w...w-your-policy/

[WhiskeyKoffee]

Originally Posted by michaelodonnell123

Not true. The key is that they must have a documented history of multiple losses in order to justify the cancellation. I have made a couple of 'non-catastrophic claims in the last eleven years and my rates did not go up nor did I get cancelled. You are giving out some very misleading information here.

STILL waiting for your apology and your admission that you were wrong. It's one thing to offer a dissenting opinion in good faith, but to reduce yourself to the "You are giving out some very misleading information here" position is simply because you lack knowledge on the topic at hand, and is downright ridiculous.

I will keep waiting for you to 1) refuse to respond; 2) claim that you are still right despite the number one consumer advocate in the history of the U.S.A. totally saying otherwise; or 3) you to actually admit that you were wrong and way out of line. I won't hold my breath on option number three, even though it is the clear choice.

[codecow]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyKoffee

You never, ever, ever want to make a claim on a homeowner's policy unless you have a catastrophic loss.

This.

It was very hard for me to insure my current house because the previous owner made a claim for $500 for a fence that blew over.

[Torque Time]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyKoffee

You never, ever, ever want to make a claim on a homeowner's policy unless you have a catastrophic loss. Always, always get a separate policy for your Rolex. I went through USAA. They approved me without anything more than my own description of my Rolex and the insured dollar amount. My wife's ring is insured through Chubb. They are more expensive, but will write a check (instead of searching for a replacement) if her ring were to be lost or stolen.

Same for me as WhiskeyKoffee. USAA for all insurance. All wife and I needed was appraisal value Or receipt for purchase price of all jewelry, diamonds, and Rolex.

Recommend continue shopping

[Chewbacca]

Interesting. Zip code also plays into it. Maybe lots of b&e or petty theft issues in your area?

[bdex75]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

Interesting. Zip code also plays into it. Maybe lots of b&e or petty theft issues in your area?

This.

I would call them and question it. I use a separate policy thru my homeowners company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillA]

Get a personal articles policy from your homeowners insurance.

[function12]

They may have turned you down because the premium was to small and not worth their risk.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by function12

They may have turned you down because the premium was to small and not worth their risk.

x2. There are fixed costs associated with establishing and administering a new policy. A $5700 policy might not be worth it for them unless they're extremely happy with the risk

[Fmnunes2803]

Man that sucks. I hope u get your watch insured some how...good luck!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rebel_1]

Wow. I've never heard of being unable to get insurance. But, if that's your only Rolex, just never take it off.

[F308gt4]

With all due respect, why insure a watch at all? I’m old school, insurance should protect against catastrophic loss. Losing your watch (or having it stolen, etc.), while it may suck, should not be a catastrophic loss.

[Syed117]

Originally Posted by F308gt4

With all due respect, why insure a watch at all? I’m old school, insurance should protect against catastrophic loss. Losing your watch (or having it stolen, etc.), while it may suck, should not be a catastrophic loss.

It's so inexpensive that you might as well have it.

That's how I see it.

[Valenciawatchrepair]

Originally Posted by F308gt4

With all due respect, why insure a watch at all? I’m old school, insurance should protect against catastrophic loss. Losing your watch (or having it stolen, etc.), while it may suck, should not be a catastrophic loss.

This. At that price, just self insure. Figure out a feasible "premium" and pay yourself in a separate account. If one day something happens, you'll have most of, if not all the cash to replace. And, you won't get the headache of making a claim.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by F308gt4

With all due respect, why insure a watch at all? I’m old school, insurance should protect against catastrophic loss. Losing your watch (or having it stolen, etc.), while it may suck, should not be a catastrophic loss.

Thats relative to the collection.. A watch maybe. As the above poster said with one watch i see the logic in self insuring. With a larger collection insurance is a must. Its catastrophic if you lose a collection on par with the value of a house and you would be nuts not to insure a house.

[liebs520]

Try Lavalier?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EDL7]

I've made several claims over the years on my home insurance..thats what they are for..
The last time..they replaced my roof..and no..they didn't drop me..

[offrdmania]

Im in the middle of having a policy written through State Farm. They are much cheaper than Jewelers mutual and will insure individual watches instead of just having them under an umbrella policy.