UK Rolex/Watch insurance

[Rolex fan 61]

I was insured with TH March, my watches were not covered when worn to work, they would only insure for 1 month if I left the UK and I'm often away longer than that, so I decided to self insure, I simply pay the insurance money every year into a separate account, and would use that money if the was a problem, ive never used the money and I have a nice lump sum building up combined with a small amount of interest.

[redfoxer]

Thanks all for all the information and experiences you have posted. Very much appreciated and food for thought!

Got some reading and quotes to do to see what is best for me.

[Donnyal]

What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'

[watchbowl]

Originally Posted by Donnyal

What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'

So you moan about the 90% instead of helping the OP?

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Donnyal

What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'

Originally Posted by Simon040289

So you moan about the 90% instead of helping the OP?

The TH march quote i posted was not added to a home policy. They are a standalone insurance. Honestly the home contents posts are good for one thing, comparison. That way you know how much more it is to insure separately.

Personally i prefer not to have watches attached to a home policy though.

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

The TH march quote i posted was not added to a home policy. They are a standalone insurance. Honestly the home contents posts are good for one thing, comparison. That way you know how much it is to insure separately.

Personally i prefer not to have watches attached to a home policy though.

But be aware some home insurance policy’s are void if you have separate standalone insurance for items which would be classed as contents ie watches.

M&S were one a year or so ago, I think they had a 10-15k watch limit and if you had a watch above this in the property it invalidated the policy!

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SC11

But be aware some home insurance policy’s are void if you have separate standalone insurance for items which would be classed as contents ie watches.

M&S were one a year or so ago, I think they had a 10-15k watch limit and if you had a watch above this in the property it invalidated the policy!

so basically that insurer won't insure a 100k RM watch as contents but if you get a separate insurance policy for it elsewhere and your house burns down and you lose the watch and the house your home insurer won't pay out for the house because you had a watch insured separately? Really ?

I wouldn't buy insurance from a grocery store anyway

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

so basically that insurer won't insure a 100k RM watch as contents but if you get a separate insurance policy for it elsewhere and your house burns down and you lose the watch and the house your home insurer won't pay out for the house because you had a watch insured separately? Really ?

In reality I don’t know the outcome!

But from my experience and a couple of separate incidents reported by forum members, M&S stated that going over thier watch limit invalidated the policy!

One instance a member called to add a gold Rolex I believe and just expected to pay a slight increase in premium but was put on hold and then advised as he had already purchased the watch and had it in his possesion it invalidate his insurance and they have cancelled his policy.

I called and just asked as I was with them, they said if I owned a watch outside thier max limit they would no longer be able to insure me, I asked about not listing the item with them and having a third party insurance but they just stated as it’s outside their limit the policy is invalid.

So in theory I guess if these rules are in place some people might own a high value watch and have chosen not even to insure it but the possession alone could invalidate thier current home insurance.

But as above I’ve not heard of anyone claiming being denied cover based on something like thi.

This was a year or so back so situation may of change but worth nothing as believe many wasn’t aware of this.

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

I wouldn't buy insurance from a grocery store anyway

But they are the broker! The underwriter is the one to look for!

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SC11

In reality I don’t know the outcome!

But from my experience and a couple of separate incidents reported by forum members, M&S stated that going over thier watch limit invalidated the policy!

One instance a member called to add a gold Rolex I believe and just expected to pay a slight increase in premium but was put on hold and then advised as he had already purchased the watch and had it in his possesion it invalidate his insurance and they have cancelled his policy.

I called and just asked as I was with them, they said if I owned a watch outside thier max limit they would no longer be able to insure me, I asked about not listing the item with them and having a third party insurance but they just stated as it’s outside their limit the policy is invalid.

So in theory I guess if these rules are in place some people might own a high value watch and have chosen not even to insure it but the possession alone could invalidate thier current home insurance.

But as above I’ve not heard of anyone claiming being denied cover based on something like thi.

This was a year or so back so situation may of change but worth nothing as believe many wasn’t aware of this.

in short read the fine print

I have learned in my time here that in general UK insurers are a pain to deal with.

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

in short read the fine print

I have learned in my time here that in general UK insurers are a pain to deal with.

In a nut shell

[redfoxer]

In all fairness, I do appreciate all comments as information is king! There's some great knowledge here.

I was looking into just content insurance vs jewelry insurance and both seem to come up pretty similar? Ripe seemed pretty decent value for money but pales in comparison when doing some contents insurance quotes.

I assume the difference is in the small print? Otherwise why would anyone not use home/contents insurance for coverage of a whole host of items vs just watches etc?

I read some state to cover watches/other high value items outside of home/contents but then some home/contents policies would be invalidated?? Such a minefield!!

If there's a key takeway from this thread - it's read the small print! Insurers don't like making things easy do they?

[SC11]

Originally Posted by redfoxer

In all fairness, I do appreciate all comments as information is king! There's some great knowledge here.

I was looking into just content insurance vs jewelry insurance and both seem to come up pretty similar? Ripe seemed pretty decent value for money but pales in comparison when doing some contents insurance quotes.

I assume the difference is in the small print? Otherwise why would anyone not use home/contents insurance for coverage of a whole host of items vs just watches etc?

I read some state to cover watches/other high value items outside of home/contents but then some home/contents policies would be invalidated?? Such a minefield!!

If there's a key takeway from this thread - it's read the small print! Insurers don't like making things easy do they?

Hence why I went with Lark as they seemed more like the old school brokers where you told them what and how you want the cover and they found an underwriter.

Brief example
I could choose how many watches were covered outside the safe so say I had a collection of 5 watches and liked to travel with 2 I could of had 2 at anyone time out of the safe or just the 1.
Plus you could specify only 1 on the wrist so basically it was cheaper but you could only have 1 out of the safe at a time and it must be on the wrist at all times.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by redfoxer

In all fairness, I do appreciate all comments as information is king! There's some great knowledge here.

I was looking into just content insurance vs jewelry insurance and both seem to come up pretty similar? Ripe seemed pretty decent value for money but pales in comparison when doing some contents insurance quotes.

I assume the difference is in the small print? Otherwise why would anyone not use home/contents insurance for coverage of a whole host of items vs just watches etc?

I read some state to cover watches/other high value items outside of home/contents but then some home/contents policies would be invalidated?? Such a minefield!!

If there's a key takeway from this thread - it's read the small print! Insurers don't like making things easy do they?

in general i dont like the idea of mixing high risk to be stolen items with my house policy. A claim or two and then your home insurer will drop you and IMO home insurance is more important. Keeping them separate is a hedge against losing a great home policy.

Fine print of individual policies aside, just a general view.

[BadBoyR]

I went with M&S as it was the best policy I could find at a reasonable cost.

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by SC11

But they are the broker! The underwriter is the one to look for!

my guess is the reason its cheaper even if the underwriter is the same for a different company's policy is because of the exclusions.

In much the same way you can get a Sony TV from best buy or a cheaper one from walmart. They are almost the same but the specs and number of HDMI ports or the processor is different. You are getting a good deal but its not quite the same TV even if it looks identical.

[redfoxer]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

in general i dont like the idea of mixing high risk to be stolen items with my house policy. A claim or two and then your home insurer will drop you and IMO home insurance is more important. Keeping them separate is a hedge against losing a great home policy.

Fine print of individual policies aside, just a general view.

Very very interesting point!

[SC11]

Originally Posted by tyler1980

in general i dont like the idea of mixing high risk to be stolen items with my house policy. A claim or two and then your home insurer will drop you and IMO home insurance is more important. Keeping them separate is a hedge against losing a great home policy.

Fine print of individual policies aside, just a general view.

Valid point but I’d imagine more claims are made on house policies then individual and I know when I last arrange insurance I was asked if I had claimed on any past house or contents insurance, so technically if you had claimed on a individual watch policy you would be oblige to disclose!

Originally Posted by tyler1980

my guess is the reason its cheaper even if the underwriter is the same for a different company's policy is because of the exclusions.

In much the same way you can get a Sony TV from best buy or a cheaper one from walmart. They are almost the same but the specs and number of HDMI ports or the processor is different. You are getting a good deal but its not quite the same TV even if it looks identical.

Don’t dispute that but I was referring to the ‘insurance from a grocery store’ comment not the cost/exclusions POV

[DavidUK]

OP, if you have home insurance check out how much it covers for valuables worldwide. This is different to personal possessions away from home. Don't assume that your watch is covered in any category without speaking to the insurer. You may benefit from changing home insurer to get a better deal including your watch.

I'm with John Lewis Premier which covers £40,000 of valuables but my DJ41 took me over that limit and so, after research, I went with T H March. Your Rolex AD probably insures with them too. Why? Because they're the best when you need them to pay out.

[Soultime]

Just on this general subject....

I had an armed robbery back in 2007 when 2 cars were stolen - and also a Rolex LV (early flat four!!) an Omega Seamaster, diamond engagement ring.....amongst other things.
The insurer (Santander?) paid out no problem and it seemed to make no difference to premiums at renewal.

I switched insurer and insured the replacement Rolex YM as a specified item with a new insurer (Sainsburys) ......and smashed it up (attached).
The insurer picked up the bill for repair and once again seemed to have little, if any impact at renewal.

[jamesreid978]

Marks and Spencer Premier home insurance is pretty good. No need to name any specific item as long as it is under £15,000 and total for £50,000. Works well for me with 2 SS Rolex and a SS Omega, however if you have a large collection of SS or any PM watches, this won't be suitable.

[Angelis]

Originally Posted by Angelis

I’m about to insure my watches with Ripe Insurance.

Never dealt with them before but they were substantially cheaper than a couple of other companies I got quotes from.

https://www.ripeinsurance.co.uk/valu...tch-insurance/

Don't bother with this company.

If you need to make a claim they will give you vouchers instead of cash, that you can only use in jewellery stores!!

[Vetracer]

Originally Posted by Donnyal

What is wrong with everyone here? OP has blatantly asked what insurance you are with if not a home owner, and 90% have replied 'i put it on my home insurance'

Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...

[Oryx]

Originally Posted by Vetracer

Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...

[redfoxer]

Originally Posted by Vetracer

Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...

Some might want to own a luxury good for a fraction of the cost of a house down payment to commemorate a special event rather than commit to a liability with commitments. But who am I to judge how people spend their money.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Vetracer

Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...

some people lease cars too. Its financial responsible if you like to switch cars often. Same with rent. If you want to move and not be tied down its smart

Ive met people who couldn't move to accept a better job offer because it would involve selling their house which proved to be too difficult. So basically they take less money and are tied down.

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Vetracer

Some might say owning expensive watches before buying a property might be considered financially irresponsible. I don’t know...

That's easy to say from someone who is presumably rather wealthy. The reality of the property market is wildly different to how it was 20 years ago. Many thirty-somethings are living with their parents despite being, by most measures, financially well-off.

In my unfashionable part of East London, house prices have quadrupled in 2 decades. Many of my neighbours would be unable to afford their homes if they were buying today. They happened to get lucky with when they bought.

If you want to live in this part of the world, and not live in one of the pockets of neighbourhood where you live in fear of your car getting chored off the drive or your home being burglarised by an organised crime gang, then you'll have to pay north of £750k for a four bedroom family home. As I said above, this is not a fashionable area either. If you want a decent mortgage rate, you'll need to pony up at least £150k for a deposit. However that means you're looking to borrow £600k for your mortgage. In order to be approved for a £600k mortgage, you need to be earning £120k p/a minimum. If you get approved for such a mortgage, you're going to be paying over £2k pcm for the privilege on a typical capital repayment loan.

That's simply not realistic for the vast majority of people and it's perfectly possible, in London and the South-East at least, to earn 3-4 times the national average wage (i.e. be relatively wealthy) and not be able to afford to buy a home for you and your family. If I'm that guy, earning that much money and am comfortable renting, having paid all my bills, taken care of my wife and kids and have saved up some spare cash, then I'm going to spend my hard-earned on things that make me happy during my all too brief stint on planet Earth rather than worry about buying a slab of land, bricks and mortar that I might never be able to afford no matter how hard I try.

[M4cca]

Originally Posted by Angelis

Don't bother with this company.

If you need to make a claim they will give you vouchers instead of cash, that you can only use in jewellery stores!!

Can confirm this is the case as I am in the process of claiming for a 116610LN SS SubC Date that was stolen from me in a street mugging back in August.

Lots of back and forth with them, had to take a day off work to host an interview with a loss-adjuster at my house. Even once liability accepted and they asked me if I wanted replacement or cash. Happy for replacement but not happy with their lead time, or the risk of a firm going under rendering my 'voucher' useless, I opted for cash.

Next issue was a junior claims handler didn't have authorisation to settle 'such a large claim' £6,250, not that large IMO. Now the RRP has gone up I've told them they need to increase the settlement inline with replacement costs. They firstly agreed and now refused. Their next trick is to demand payment of the full annual premium as I was paying monthly. I have agreed to this, though I'm not sure if I should - does anyone have any thoughts on that? I don't plan to stay with them once settlement has been made. 3+ months and counting to agree on a settlement is not acceptable in my opinion.

[K1Mac]

Originally Posted by jamesreid978

Marks and Spencer Premier home insurance is pretty good. No need to name any specific item as long as it is under £15,000 and total for £50,000. Works well for me with 2 SS Rolex and a SS Omega, however if you have a large collection of SS or any PM watches, this won't be suitable.

having done a search on the subject of Insurance I have just taken a policy with M&S, it seems a very good policy even with putting quite a high value for contents outside the home it wasn't that much more than my previous insurer but with the Unlimited value for buildings and contents!
I spoke to them to confirm a few things and they did explain that any item knowingly over their £15,000 threshold would not be covered and they could not insure me, however if all single items are below this then it's fine.

[LondonLukeM]

Some very interesting points here. My current home insurers (Barclays) have told me that due to my new additions to the watch collection last year; they will not be able to renew my policy in May. They have told me i will need to look elsewhere!
I have a large safe that weighs 350kg and is bolted to concrete floor and wall along with an alarm system and cameras in my property, my friend is a master locksmith and has advised me that for anyone to make a dent in my safe it would take at least 10 hours and a hell of a lot of noise. I am tempted to forego insuring my watches as i struggle to see how any body could access my valuables bar having a gun put to my head in which case I would happily hand them over.
I also agree that i wouldnt want to affect my home insurance premiums by making claims against my watches.
They really dont make it easy for us!