Renter's Insurance + Ring Insurance - Is it worth it?

[CrimsonStache]

I recently purchased Renter's Insurance with a ring rider policy on my wife's engagement and wedding band. I'll need to look at the specifics, but it costs around $270/year and covers up to $20k on the Renter's Insurance and $10k on the ring with a $2000 deductible.

I did this for the following reasons:
1). I don't live in a great area of town and I travel ~month per year so the renters insurance covers me in the case that someone breaks into the house and cleans me out. It also makes me feel at ease when I am out of town knowing I am covered.
2). My wife's rings are expensive and it would be terrible if they were lost or the stones fell out.

Does anyone else purchase Renter's Insurance or Ring Insurance?

[ohana]

Well, that's not a lot of money per year.

Renter's insurance is common and logical.  Having a piece of jewelry that needs to be insured?  I think you're begging for a facepunch from us.

[Chris22]

I have a couple riders on personal property; one is for jewelry (provided receipts on pieces covered), another is for "household electronics" (mostly bought because I have a three year old with a habit of dropping iPads, which is covered).  Combined I think they're about $175 a year?  I know MMM is all "self insure always" but that's a really low risk:reward in my eyes.  Same reason I keep a $1M umbrella policy. 

[Astro Camper]

$10,000 for rings. People are crazy. I work with woman that has 8k ring. Has to get it cleaned and adjusted every year by the ins policy. Stupid. Walks around always grabbing her hand checking if the ring is still there. Why carry something like that. So un-MM.

Sell the damn thing and invest that money.

[BDWW]

No.

If the insurance company is willing to insure you for that amount, the likelihood of something happening is small despite your impressions. Perhaps, if you personally know you have a methhead neighbor or some other specific knowledge the insurance company doesn't have, it might be worth it.

Insurance is gambling, when you buy insurance, you are betting that you are the exception, not the rule.

[Prairie Stash]

I didn't have $2000 in stuff to clean out when I rented. Most of my items were stuff that can't be stolen i.e. bed, couch, dishes, food etc. I don't really think a thief is going to call up his buddy to help him move my furniture. Do you have that much stuff that can be easily stolen? Lots of people don't, don't confuse everything you own with stuff that can be stolen.

I bought a decent ring for my wife, one of the nice things about decent rings is they hold onto their stones better. It comes with a free insurance policy; bring it in for cleaning/inspection regularly and they'll replace it if the stone gets lost. They expect me to shop while I wait, pretty shrewd marketing on their part. Wait five minutes and stare at pretty objects while they provide a free service...My wife likes the cleaning for free though, gets the hand lotions out of the crevices. Do you have free insurance as a marketing ploy?

$10,000 for rings. People are crazy. I work with woman that has 8k ring. Has to get it cleaned and adjusted every year by the ins policy. Stupid. Walks around always grabbing her hand checking if the ring is still there. Why carry something like that. So un-MM.

Free insurance for her I bet, basically my deal too. Not debating the merit of expensive rings, just saying free is better than paid for insurance.

I have house insurance to cover fires, floods, hail etc. If I get robbed they'll steal my Ipad and laptop (replacement under $2K). Possibly my TV but its cumbersome to move, still not hitting $2k though. It's $700/year to protect $300K of house with contents, I can't self insure that much, that would take years to recover.

[MasterStache]

There are highly paid actuaries that are very good at analyzing risk/reward for insurance purposes. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that you are wasting your money. Expensive jewelry is a bit ridiculous. Paying to insure it just adds to the cost.

[Chris22]

There are highly paid actuaries that are very good at analyzing risk/reward for insurance purposes. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that you are wasting your money. Expensive jewelry is a bit ridiculous. Paying to insure it just adds to the cost.

My wife has $15-20k worth* of jewelry on every time she leaves the house (facepunch away, I don't care, it was paid in full on purchase), so yeah, <$200 a year is worth it to me to never have to worry about it ever. 


*Paid probably $12k, but platinum prices have shot WAY up so cost to replace is much higher now

[Jack]

I didn't have $2000 in stuff to clean out when I rented. Most of my items were stuff that can't be stolen i.e. bed, couch, dishes, food etc. I don't really think a thief is going to call up his buddy to help him move my furniture. Do you have that much stuff that can be easily stolen? Lots of people don't, don't confuse everything you own with stuff that can be stolen.

Theft is only one situation that renter's insurance covers; fire is a more important one. Not only would you suddenly have to replace all you belongings on short notice (meaning you can't necessarily wait to find a good deal on Craigslist), but you would also need potentially-expensive short-term lodging until you could find a good deal on a new apartment.

Oh yeah, that brings me to the most important reason: liability. If said fire turned out to be your fault, that renter's insurance might be paying to replace the entire building.

I agree with the principle that if you can afford to self-insure then in general you should do so, but if you're only thinking of theft then the downside risk of not having renter's insurance is a lot more than you're accounting for.

That said, $22.50/month strikes me as kind of expensive for renter's insurance -- clearly, the jewelry rider is stupid and ought to go (along with the jewelry, of course) -- but when I was renting and paying something like $10/month for insurance I thought that was perfectly reasonable.

[headachemustache]

I paid for renter's insurance (ballpark $200) for 14 years with no claims, but never considered it money poorly spent; it gave me peace of mind that we had SOME kind of coverage given the risks of bad landlords, bad neighborhoods, bad weather, you name it.  Year 15 a flood in the house caused $18K in damage to furniture/personal possessions.  There were things of sentimental value that were destroyed and sadly could never be replaced, and while it was a royal pain to document all the losses, I was immensely grateful to have the insurance check. 

I recommend renters insurance to everyone I know who's renting.  In my view, it's some of the cheapest coverage you can buy.

I don't have jewelry insurance, and have occasionally wondered if it would be good to have it, but the rates I saw just didn't seem worthwhile/cheap enough.

[Chris22]

I recommend renters insurance to everyone I know who's renting.  In my view, it's some of the cheapest coverage you can buy.

Frankly, any lease I've ever signed, from a subletted condo to a corporation-run apartment to leasing out my house to tenants has included a requirement to carry renter's insurance.  I would be wary of someplace that didn't require it. 

[appleblossom]

I didn't have $2000 in stuff to clean out when I rented. Most of my items were stuff that can't be stolen i.e. bed, couch, dishes, food etc. I don't really think a thief is going to call up his buddy to help him move my furniture. Do you have that much stuff that can be easily stolen? Lots of people don't, don't confuse everything you own with stuff that can be stolen.

Theft is only one situation that renter's insurance covers; fire is a more important one. Not only would you suddenly have to replace all you belongings on short notice (meaning you can't necessarily wait to find a good deal on Craigslist), but you would also need potentially-expensive short-term lodging until you could find a good deal on a new apartment.

Oh yeah, that brings me to the most important reason: liability. If said fire turned out to be your fault, that renter's insurance might be paying to replace the entire building.

I agree with the principle that if you can afford to self-insure then in general you should do so, but if you're only thinking of theft then the downside risk of not having renter's insurance is a lot more than you're accounting for.

That said, $22.50/month strikes me as kind of expensive for renter's insurance -- clearly, the jewelry rider is stupid and ought to go (along with the jewelry, of course) -- but when I was renting and paying something like $10/month for insurance I thought that was perfectly reasonable.

+1

I got renters insurance as soon as I moved out of my university dorm. I didn't own anything of any value, maybe 10k of belongings, but it was the liability cover I had it for.
A uni friend narrowly avoided having to pay when his roommate burnt down their kitchen (jointly liable under our tenancy laws), but there are stories all the time here where people aren't covered.

[MasterStache]

Perhaps my situation was  a bit different. I literally had nothing of value. A tube TV, a used bed, a single couch, a cheap desktop computer. No jewelry. I paid renters insurance for a bit until I realized I had nothing of value to anyone. And in the rare chance something did get stolen, it wasn't going to change anything about my life.

I don't believe there are any laws in my state regarding renters insurance. I could be wrong. It's been a while since I rented.   

[ohana]

So thinking about this, I'm wondering -- why have an expensive ring when you could use that money as a down payment on a house of your own? 

[lakemom]

Most definitely worth it but maybe shop it around and see if you can find something less expensive.  Our oldest lost their house to fire (an electrical problem not caused by them) and they lived in a 500sq ft rental cottage and pegged their 50k policy with their losses.  They had replacement coverage and just replacing all their clothes (fairly quickly and generally at retail prices) was quite a lot of money.  They lost all their furniture (mostly free hand me downs but they had to purchase replacements) and all their linens, all their toiletries, cleaning supplies, FOOD, many of their dishes, all their books (including $500 in library books that were in the home at the time of the fire), all their electronics/camera equipt, sporting equipment, etc.  It adds up faster than your realize when a fire/flood/tornado/hurricane causes a complete loss of everything your own.  I'd say theft is the least expensive loss you would experience.  Of course part of the 50k they received from the insurance company was put towards the down payment on their house a couple of years later because, other than the several thousand they spent in the first few weeks after the fire replacing necessities, they replace the contents frugally the same way they acquired them originally.

[protostache]

Insurance is gambling, when you buy insurance, you are betting that you are the exception, not the rule.

Insurance is fundamentally different than gambling. To quote this Quora post, "insurance transfers risks that already existed; gambling creates risk for entertainment." The ring exists. There is a small risk that it can get lost or damaged. You could either protect yourself by holding onto $10k in cash, or you can transfer the risk to the insurance company for a small recurring fee.

This is even more true with renters insurance. Most of us live in a pile of sticks, asphalt, and highly flammable textiles. There's a non-zero risk of it going up in flames, either due to our own fault or the fault of a neighbor. You buy an insurance policy to transfer this small but non-zero risk to an entity with the resources to handle it.

[SeanMC]

The OP wants to know if insurance is worth it for an expensive piece of jewelry that belongs to his wife.

I don't see how it is helpful or constructive to tell him not to have this piece of jewelry (that isn't his). It's not how I would spend my money, but I'm sure I have other luxury preferences that other people don't agree with either. The point is to spend/own only things that truly enhance your quality of life. For some people, that is jewelry.

Here is how I would think about it:

What is the actual loss amount if something happened? Would you buy the exact same replacement? Would you buy something different? What is the true value to your wife from losing this jewelry (which is not the market value if you're never selling it)? Separate out sentimental value that you do not recoup when damage or loss occurs.

How likely is it really that something bad will happen for which the insurance will pay out? How much risk is too much for you/your wife? Do you need to have insurance for your wife to feel comfortable enjoying and wearing the jewelry? (if she never gets to "enjoy" having it because of fear of loss, then what's the point?)

[Guses]

Your insurance is stupid expensive.

I pay around 330$ CAD for insurance that covers a 350,000$ building + up to 150,000$ in contents. My deductible is only 500$ (higher only saves like 10$) and I am also insured for 2M$ liability.

You pay 270$ per year to an insurance that would cover only 28,000$ at most in case of total loss. This is crap.

You say that it would be terrible if your wife lost her ring. Insurance will not prevent that, it will only compensate in $ after the ring is lost.

I would carry renter's insurance if it came with liability and it cost less than 1/3 of what you pay.

 

[Chris22]

Your insurance is stupid expensive.

I pay around 330$ CAD for insurance that covers a 350,000$ building + up to 150,000$ in contents. My deductible is only 500$ (higher only saves like 10$) and I am also insured for 2M$ liability.

You pay 270$ per year to an insurance that would cover only 28,000$ at most in case of total loss. This is crap.

You say that it would be terrible if your wife lost her ring. Insurance will not prevent that, it will only compensate in $ after the ring is lost.

I would carry renter's insurance if it came with liability and it cost less than 1/3 of what you pay.

Yes, home/property owner's insurance and renter's insurance carry different prices because they are different risk pools and different payouts.  Trying to equate the two is what is stupid.

[Guses]

Your insurance is stupid expensive.

I pay around 330$ CAD for insurance that covers a 350,000$ building + up to 150,000$ in contents. My deductible is only 500$ (higher only saves like 10$) and I am also insured for 2M$ liability.

You pay 270$ per year to an insurance that would cover only 28,000$ at most in case of total loss. This is crap.

You say that it would be terrible if your wife lost her ring. Insurance will not prevent that, it will only compensate in $ after the ring is lost.

I would carry renter's insurance if it came with liability and it cost less than 1/3 of what you pay.

Yes, home/property owner's insurance and renter's insurance carry different prices because they are different risk pools and different payouts.  Trying to equate the two is what is stupid.

Nice, thanks for calling me stupid! Anything else you want to add or is that insult all that you wanted to contribute? How I love the anonymity of the internet and the cowards hiding behind it to hurl insults at others!

Just to point out how unsubstantiated your comment is, I used to rent and my renter's insurance covering 25,000$ (IIRC) with a 500$ deductible used to cost 67$ CAD per year.

But yeah, I am totally the one being stupid here.

[Ricky]

There are highly paid actuaries that are very good at analyzing risk/reward for insurance purposes. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that you are wasting your money. Expensive jewelry is a bit ridiculous. Paying to insure it just adds to the cost.

My wife has $15-20k worth* of jewelry on every time she leaves the house (facepunch away, I don't care, it was paid in full on purchase), so yeah, <$200 a year is worth it to me to never have to worry about it ever. 

Then the reason for starting a thread about it...is...?

I think the above poster meant that instead of having such an expensive ring and other valuables, you could be in a house, building equity and have far better (and necessary) insurance coverage. It would make more sense, be more efficient, and make you richer in the long run.

To answer the question, no, because I would never own enough expensive crap that I was truly worried about being stolen or burnt up. Regardless, I agree that it's inconsequential at less than $1 a day. We don't know your full financial picture, thus can't make an overall judgment. Little bits and pieces of someone's financial life is pretty much useless without context. If we found you and your wife make $150k combined, would we judge you for a $10k, one time purchase? No. But then again, we don't know what else you spend your money on/your savings rate/etc. And ultimately, it's not our business. People have no right to judge you, just give their opinion of what they would do. But it's really difficult to compare what one person would to do another when one person makes way more money or prioritizes other areas than others. Threads like these are ultimately a waste of time if we're being honest.

[Scubanewbie]

The OP wants to know if insurance is worth it for an expensive piece of jewelry that belongs to his wife.

I don't see how it is helpful or constructive to tell him not to have this piece of jewelry (that isn't his). It's not how I would spend my money, but I'm sure I have other luxury preferences that other people don't agree with either. The point is to spend/own only things that truly enhance your quality of life. For some people, that is jewelry.

+1
Exactly what I was going to write.  I have a ring that costs less than a nice vacation...because I VALUE vacations, I DON'T value jewelry (and my DH was broke when we got married :)

Back to the ORIGINAL question.  ::sigh::  I think the ring rider is likely not needed but I'd ask the following three questions:
1) How long has she had the ring (I carried ring insurance for a year after getting married, figured if I was likely to lose the thing it was going to be while I wasn't used to wearing it --- I'm not a ring person)
2) What all does your insurance cover (there is a WIDE variety of insurance here.  Mine covered if I lost it or if a stone fell out --- much different than only liability for it being stolen in my opinion.  It also covered REPLACEMENT cost rather than original cost).  Check everything out and decide if what you and DW are worried about is what you're insuring.
3)  How much is your wife's jewelry?  I don't mean to pry but a $2K deductible for me would be over half my rings so likely not worth it for me to carry the insurance.  Think about that in terms of ... if $2K isn't an emergency, would $4K really be much of an emergency?
4) Bonus question - how does your wife feel about it?  Regardless of the rationality of it, if my spouse felt a lot better about having insurance, I'd keep the insurance.  Try to make sure all the other points are taken care of though.

Cheers

[Chris22]

There are highly paid actuaries that are very good at analyzing risk/reward for insurance purposes. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor that you are wasting your money. Expensive jewelry is a bit ridiculous. Paying to insure it just adds to the cost.

My wife has $15-20k worth* of jewelry on every time she leaves the house (facepunch away, I don't care, it was paid in full on purchase), so yeah, <$200 a year is worth it to me to never have to worry about it ever. 

Then the reason for starting a thread about it...is...?

I'm not the OP.

[Chris22]

Your insurance is stupid expensive.

I pay around 330$ CAD for insurance that covers a 350,000$ building + up to 150,000$ in contents. My deductible is only 500$ (higher only saves like 10$) and I am also insured for 2M$ liability.

You pay 270$ per year to an insurance that would cover only 28,000$ at most in case of total loss. This is crap.

You say that it would be terrible if your wife lost her ring. Insurance will not prevent that, it will only compensate in $ after the ring is lost.

I would carry renter's insurance if it came with liability and it cost less than 1/3 of what you pay.

Yes, home/property owner's insurance and renter's insurance carry different prices because they are different risk pools and different payouts.  Trying to equate the two is what is stupid.

Nice, thanks for calling me stupid! Anything else you want to add or is that insult all that you wanted to contribute? How I love the anonymity of the internet and the cowards hiding behind it to hurl insults at others!

Just to point out how unsubstantiated your comment is, I used to rent and my renter's insurance covering 25,000$ (IIRC) with a 500$ deductible used to cost 67$ CAD per year.

But yeah, I am totally the one being stupid here.

Unbunch the panties.  I didn't call you stupid, I said equating or comparing rental insurance and HO insurance is stupid, which it is, because they have entirely different risk profiles.  If you want to say $270 is expensive versus your 67CAD, that is at least comparing apples:apples (albeit McIntosh:Golden Delicious because of different locations, etc).  It is almost always a bad idea to compare insurance policies to one another unless it's company A to company B on the same coverage on the same asset.  Otherwise, there are just way too many variables up for consideration. 

[Lexaholik]

I recently purchased Renter's Insurance with a ring rider policy on my wife's engagement and wedding band. I'll need to look at the specifics, but it costs around $270/year and covers up to $20k on the Renter's Insurance and $10k on the ring with a $2000 deductible.

I did this for the following reasons:
1). I don't live in a great area of town and I travel ~month per year so the renters insurance covers me in the case that someone breaks into the house and cleans me out. It also makes me feel at ease when I am out of town knowing I am covered.
2). My wife's rings are expensive and it would be terrible if they were lost or the stones fell out.

Does anyone else purchase Renter's Insurance or Ring Insurance?

I've purchased ring insurance in the past, but discontinued it after one year. The key to buying insurance is being aware that you're paying for peace of mind. I bought an expensive ring (against MMM principles, I know) and insured it because I wanted my fiance to be able to wear it everywhere without having to worry about losing it. I wanted to avoid situations where she'd say to herself "hmm, better keep the ring at home to be safe." To me being able to not worry about loss of the ring was worth the $300/yr I paid.

Why did I cancel it after the first year? It's kind of related to why I bought such an expensive ring in the first place. My fiance is super frugal but she works in a high income profession/industry. At the time I was also working in a high income profession too, and felt that buying her a cheap ring was out of the question. (I also never discussed how much I should spend on the ring with her because the proposal was a surprise.) My view was that I'd rather err on the expensive side (rather than the cheap side) to be safe--after all it's not worth it for your fiance to experience social shaming, however irrational that may be. I also didn't want her to think that I was being cheap.

In the end my concerns were for naught. After I proposed, she told me that I didn't need to get such an expensive ring. We joked about how we should sell the ring and replace the diamond with a CZ and nobody would know. Of course the resale values for diamond rings are terrible, and there's sentimental value to the ring, so we decided not to do that. However, if the ring is lost, I don't think we're above replacing it with a CZ and just not telling our friends about it. Therefore, I no longer worry about losing the ring---and therefore the ring insurance is no longer worth the peace of mind it provides.

[zephyr911]

Renters is great.

If you need insurance for your rings, you paid too got-dam much.

[Cassie]

I would carry the ring insurance. You could shop around and see if you can get a better price. MM is about enjoying what you spend your $ on. There is nothing wrong with having an expensive wedding ring. You wear it everyday for years.

[merula]

+1 for Chris22. You wouldn't say "The insurance on your Audi is one third the insurance on my semi, even though my semi costs ten times as much, and is in a different country, so therefore your insurance is stupid expensive", so why are you saying the same thing about homeowners versus renters insurance?

[RobFIRE]

My perspective on insurance is that insurance should be taken out for cases where you insure against a large, unlikely risk that you could not afford to cover, and the risk is not specifically knowable. So insuring your house against fire is appropriate, you would not afford a $200,000 or $500,000 loss. (By "specifically knowable" I mean a house fire may be caused by a random accident that you had no control over).

On the other hand, there is insurance say for accidental damage to a mobile phone. You should be in a position to cover the cost of a replacement phone. From an insurer's perspective, accidental damage to a phone is on average a very likely risk, so you would be paying maybe 25% or more a year of the value of the phone as premiums. Similarly, when I had a car worth less than £1000 I was happy to have third party insurance only (insured against damage to others and for theft of your vehicle, but not insured for accident damage to your vehicle), it was not worth paying more to insure less than a £1000 risk. So, yes, self-insure on smaller risks.

The total value of my possessions is probably around GBP £1000 for electronics and under GBP £1000 for clothes. So for that I happily self-insure as a renter.

As as renter in the UK, the landlord has to insure the building (and optionally his furniture), the tenant does not have to have any insurance and isn't liable for fire damage etc. even if their fault by accident (obviously criminal arson is another matter). So as a UK renter no insurance necessary, but as understand it in the US the rules may be different. If as a renter you could be liable for the cost of the building in the event of fire, then yes I would insure against that.

[use2betrix]

I have insurance on my wife's ring. It's insured for about $6000, for $90/year. I don't pay for it because I can't do math, I pay for it so neither of us have to lose a second thought about it disappearing.

In some cases with insurance or warranties its the peace of mind and convenience you pay for. I have a pretty busy life and make a good amount of money. Sometimes paying for peace of mind and convenience is worth it.

[Guses]

+1 for Chris22. You wouldn't say "The insurance on your Audi is one third the insurance on my semi, even though my semi costs ten times as much, and is in a different country, so therefore your insurance is stupid expensive, so why are you saying the same thing about homeowners versus renters insurance.

If you are paying the same amount of money to insure a 1976 pinto as the international space station (if such insurance existed), it doesn't take a genius to figure out that someone is getting fleeced.

My point was that the OP should probably shop around if he intends to keep the coverage. Risk determination is the insurer's job, our bottom line is dollar and cents.

[ender]

Renters is great.

If you need insurance for your rings, you paid too got-dam much.

Eh, our insurance on our rings is about 1% of their total value (which is the only reason we have it).

We obviously don't need the insurance, but it seems reasonable to have at that rate.

[merula]

As as renter in the UK, the landlord has to insure the building (and optionally his furniture), the tenant does not have to have any insurance and isn't liable for fire damage etc. even if their fault by accident (obviously criminal arson is another matter). So as a UK renter no insurance necessary, but as understand it in the US the rules may be different. If as a renter you could be liable for the cost of the building in the event of fire, then yes I would insure against that.

You might want to double check your tenancy agreement and/or laws. I'm not in the UK, but I've sold insurance to UK operations of US companies who were required by their landlords to have Public Liability cover (US translation: general or premises liability coverage). Also, even outside the contract provisions, there's a common law standard that people (including landlords) are entitled to recourse against those who damage their property, so I would be extremely surprised if the UK had somehow waived that for tenants.

[Beridian]

A long time ago I took out an insurance rider on my (now ex) wife's ring.  Looking back it was a pretty dumb move.  I paid that rider year after year, I pretty much forgot about it, by the time I took notice and cancelled it I probably paid the price of the ring a second time over.

Forgive me if I seem insensitive, but I question why anyone would walk around with a 10K+ ring on (I didn't see what the value was in your OP) unless they were so well-off that losing it would not be a big deal.  If losing the value of that ring is untenable to your financial situation I suggest you put it in a safety deposit box and wear inexpensive gold bands or possibly look into an inexpensive fake for wear daily.

I wonder the same thing when I see items of clothing, purses, shoes etc., that cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.  I presume that the wearer of such extravagant items must be so wealthy that it is no big deal if the item is lost or damaged, either that or they are just not very astute.

[Goldielocks]

Your insurance is stupid expensive.

I pay around 330$ CAD for insurance that covers a 350,000$ building + up to 150,000$ in contents. My deductible is only 500$ (higher only saves like 10$) and I am also insured for 2M$ liability.

You pay 270$ per year to an insurance that would cover only 28,000$ at most in case of total loss. This is crap.

You say that it would be terrible if your wife lost her ring. Insurance will not prevent that, it will only compensate in $ after the ring is lost.

I would carry renter's insurance if it came with liability and it cost less than 1/3 of what you pay.

GUSES, Please please please tell me who your carrier is.  I assume it is a Canadian provider.  I have only found one that is lowish cost for me, and I still pay $500 a year more than that. 

To OP -- I don't have ring insurance because I would not replace the ring if lost.   I would only buy a gold band, for about $200.  Same goes for contents insurance -- I asked myself what I would need after a major loss, and how much it cost, and how much I would be short to instantly cover it.  So, I would NOT need all the stuff I have now, and my FU money would cover half of my basics..  I had renters insurance for the liability and other protections only, not contents.

For me, I do have the extra rider for garden equipment (lawnmower etc), bikes and sporting equipment.  We would definitely want to replace our bikes right away.

[RobFIRE]

As as renter in the UK, the landlord has to insure the building (and optionally his furniture), the tenant does not have to have any insurance and isn't liable for fire damage etc. even if their fault by accident (obviously criminal arson is another matter). So as a UK renter no insurance necessary, but as understand it in the US the rules may be different. If as a renter you could be liable for the cost of the building in the event of fire, then yes I would insure against that.

You might want to double check your tenancy agreement and/or laws. I'm not in the UK, but I've sold insurance to UK operations of US companies who were required by their landlords to have Public Liability cover (US translation: general or premises liability coverage). Also, even outside the contract provisions, there's a common law standard that people (including landlords) are entitled to recourse against those who damage their property, so I would be extremely surprised if the UK had somehow waived that for tenants.

You're correct. I perhaps wasn't clear but what I meant was that if the property is destroyed by fire the tenant isn't going to be liable for the entire value of the property even if the fire may have been caused by the tenant's error (say leaving oven on). Of course tenant is likely to be liable if the fixtures/fittings/furniture is damaged by accidental damage or abuse.

My tenancy agreement says it better than I did "It is hereby understood that the Landlord will insure and keep insured during the period of the tenancy the Property and fixtures, fittings and effects as itemised in the Inventory with a reputable Insurance Company against loss or damage by fire, theft, flood, vandalism. The Tenant shall be responsible for insuring against accidental damage the fixtures, fittings and effects as itemised in the Inventory and those items which he personally introduces into the Property during the period of the tenancy."

So I'm happy to self insure against accidental damage to fixtures, fittings and effects.

[use2betrix]

A long time ago I took out an insurance rider on my (now ex) wife's ring.  Looking back it was a pretty dumb move.  I paid that rider year after year, I pretty much forgot about it, by the time I took notice and cancelled it I probably paid the price of the ring a second time over.

Forgive me if I seem insensitive, but I question why anyone would walk around with a 10K+ ring on (I didn't see what the value was in your OP) unless they were so well-off that losing it would not be a big deal.  If losing the value of that ring is untenable to your financial situation I suggest you put it in a safety deposit box and wear inexpensive gold bands or possibly look into an inexpensive fake for wear daily.

I wonder the same thing when I see items of clothing, purses, shoes etc., that cost thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.  I presume that the wearer of such extravagant items must be so wealthy that it is no big deal if the item is lost or damaged, either that or they are just not very astute.

Personally, my wife didn't care how much I spent. Me, however, I can appreciate and enjoy nice shit sometimes.

I didn't want to stare at my wife's finger the next 30 years and think, "I sure am glad I skimped on that ring so I could save a little extra that year."

Also, it makes a bit of a difference if you buy a 5k ring and you make 35k or 150k. 1 months of savings is a lot different than 6 months of savings.

[pdxvandal]

I've had ring insurance for about 7-8 years and pay $25 a year for it ... valued at $3k.

I can afford $2 per month.

[Laura Ingalls]

To OP -- I don't have ring insurance because I would not replace the ring if lost.   I would only buy a gold band, for about $200.  Same goes for contents insurance -- I asked myself what I would need after a major loss, and how much it cost, and how much I would be short to instantly cover it.  So, I would NOT need all the stuff I have now, and my FU money would cover half of my basics..  I had renters insurance for the liability and other protections only, not contents.

For me, I do have the extra rider for garden equipment (lawnmower etc), bikes and sporting equipment.  We would definitely want to replace our bikes right away.

I would most definitely have renter's insurance.  People always think about their stuff but it is the liability coverage that counts.  We had a house fire in a rented house 3 years ago.  My rather crappy insurance co is still on the hook for any liability claims even though they dropped us at the first opportunity.  There are still two more years til the statue of limitations runs out.

Loss of use is a big deal too.  We were paid the difference between the rent we paid and the more expensive rent of the new place, mileage at the IRS rate because the new place was further from work than the old, and the fact that our utilities were more (this was the case mostly due to the difference in the coldness of the winters :) )

I think if you would replace the rings it might be worth it.  My wedding ring survived the fire since it was not home at the time (thankful just like the rest of me). DH's was lost.  He never wore it.  Interestingly enough it was valued at $500.  We paid $50 initally.  One item that the insurance co was more than fair on.

[KidneyMD]

Are there websites you guys recommend that let you get quotes or compare renter's insurance policies, like there are for car insurance?

[Jack]

Are there websites you guys recommend that let you get quotes or compare renter's insurance policies, like there are for car insurance?

One way in which my life is perhaps not as financially-optimized as it could be is that I use a broker who shops around for me. (This is because it's the same broker my parents use, so it was easy to just call him up when I was first moving out on my own, and I've let him continue to handle it since.)

[merula]

Are there websites you guys recommend that let you get quotes or compare renter's insurance policies, like there are for car insurance?

One way in which my life is perhaps not as financially-optimized as it could be is that I use a broker who shops around for me. (This is because it's the same broker my parents use, so it was easy to just call him up when I was first moving out on my own, and I've let him continue to handle it since.)

Disagree! Using an insurance broker can definitely be an optimization. I've never been able to find an online or direct insurance writer that can match the price of the independent agent I use. Plus, if something goes wrong, I have the agent's Errors & Omissions as a backstop.

I do still shop around about once ever three years or so, just in case, but since I'm currently paying 20%+ less than the next cheapest, I don't really expect finding anything better.

[CrimsonStache]

Thanks for all the great advice.

Here's the background:
My wife and I make a combined $150k/year. Our savings rate is ~50% of our take home pay. I paid a combined $12k for here engagement and wedding band a few years ago.

I am pretty frugal, but I didn't want to go cheap on a ring. You only get married once and I wanted her to have something that she was proud of and liked wearing.

I used an insurance broker to get the renter's insurance and ring rider through traveler's insurance, but I'm wondering if I got the best deal. I might call around a few insurance companies just to make sure.

I was long overdue on the renter's insurance and I would probably forego the ring rider, but DW loves to wear her ring and it puts her at ease to know that it will be covered in case it is lost.

+1 for whoever suggested to replace it with CZ if it gets lost

[rubybeth]

Check with Jeweler's Mutual on insurance for the engagement ring/wedding band. You may need an updated appraisal, but for me, the peace of mind is worth the relatively low cost of insurance.

[MMM98]

Very timely.  This perspective from a parent of a 22 YO who was taken out by ladder truck from third floor of apartment eight days ago: you insure what you cannot afford to lose. 

Now really did she have that much?  Not to my more experienced eyes, but to her it was the world.  In fact it will be a total loss covered by the apartment required insurance of 10K.  Had you asked me a month ago I would be indifferent and today I still am from a monetary perspective.  But to her it gives a starting point, a purpose, now she can buy what she wants.  You can read up on it if you like: http://wwmt.com/news/local/crews-work-to-put-out-fire-at-battle-creek-apartment-complex

[Blonde Lawyer]

Also, check with your insurance company to see if you actually need a rider.  My company has some kind of formula where my house contents are insured at some percentage of a value of the house.  It is way higher than the sum total of anything I actually own.  I inquired about whether I needed a rider for a couple things.  I was told that this policy didn't have individual limits on items.  Rather, I only needed a rider if the sum of the contents exceeded their max. 

[Suzaloo]

Just my two cents (adjusted for U.S. $..make that $0.75) as an insurance agent. It is really important to carry property insurance if you're not in the position to have oodles of cash around to self insure for a large loss.
Having said that, I'm a bit concerned at why you have a $2,000 deductible on a $10,000 ring. Did you check to see if there is an insurance package that offers a higher limit on jewelry coverage? Policies can vary in their special limits and if you have a higher limit for jewelry, you may not require the personal articles floater.

[headachemustache]

An update ... this thread prompted me to review my insurance coverage, and interestingly, I just discovered that by adding jewelry coverage for $63/year, I am eligible for a discount of $72/year off my bundled insurance costs (because I have several policies through the same company).   Now that's a no-brainer - I will save $9 and ultimately get more coverage.

[big_slacker]

An update ... this thread prompted me to review my insurance coverage, and interestingly, I just discovered that by adding jewelry coverage for $63/year, I am eligible for a discount of $72/year off my bundled insurance costs (because I have several policies through the same company).   Now that's a no-brainer - I will save $9 and ultimately get more coverage.

Man am I glad this thread came up!

I checked my policy which was supposedly written to cover my stuff was *WAY* low on jewelry/watches and on bicycles! I'm not ballin outta control but the limits were $1000 per piece on jewelry (wife's ring is twice that) and $1000 on bikes (My commuter is worth maybe a little more than that and my MTB over twice). We wouldn't have been totally screwed but it would hurt.

[grizz]

I think the renter's insurance is worthwhile. It is normally pretty cheap and is often worth it if you live in a bad area and/or in a multi-family building.

A ring is supposed to be a symbol of the union of two people, or of love or whatever. I think the problem with expensive ones is that the personal (non-monetary) value of the symbol is completely lost and the cash value of the ring itself becomes the object of attention/worry. Why carry around something that expensive on a day-to-day basis? If the ring did end up being lost/damaged/stolen, it seems the feeling of loss that would come with it would be more about the dollar amount and not the loss of something sentimental or emotionally valuable.