Insuring Train Collection?

I have a policy offered through the TCA.

This might help.

https://ogrforum.com/t...tables-insurance-svc

A good homeowners policy with a good insurance company will cover even a large collection.  I checked with my company, USAA, and I'm covered.

I do mine through TCA too.  It is a bargain and another benefit of membership in TCA.

Curt

Purchase it through the TCA.  They are experienced and have a well proven track record.  Their procedures are simple to follow and you don't have to be concerned about the vagaries of an ambiguous homeowner's policy.  I changed over years ago and I'm glad I did.

I have my collection insured through American Collector's Institute (ACI).

 

Their insurance has no deductible and my trains are covered from time of purchase (including online purchases and damage in shipping to me), through use at both home, and anywhere that I should take them... Friend's house, repair facility, hobby shop, and/or club layout.  My premium is $112.50/year.

 

 

Please see my queries posted today on this thread:

https://ogrforum.com/t...tables-insurance-svc

Premiums are usually billed in cost per hundred or cost per thousand.

The TCA policy has two options: scheduled (itemized) and unscheduled (blanket).

I think the scheduled policy is 60 cents per hundred, and the blanket is 75 cents per hundred. 

Just looked at my most recent TCA Headquarters News; CW's premium prices are correct.

Curt

I also use the TCA insurance Blanket policy.

 

Clem k

TCA Blanket Policy.

HELLO...has anyone noticed B&M's reply?I just changed my home owners.I discussed it in detail.I am covered.Nick

I understood my collection would be covered under my homeowner policy for no additional cost as well, but policy coverages vary within and between states.  Having changed carriers three times in the past ten years (see note below) and self-insured by carrying the highest reasonable deductible to minimize premiums, I expect I would just cuss a little before realizing the loss event would spare me the effort of disposing of the trains some day.

 

Note:  You can save good money if you have no claims and shop around instead of perpetually renewing auto and homeowner policies.  Insurance companies bank (pun intended) on affinity relationships with them (exclusive membership, multiple product offerings and discounts, vanishing deductibles, etc.) and being unmotivated to shop around as premiums creep up and coverages shrink over time.  A diligent independent agent can shop for you or you can do it yourself.

 

What, me worry?    

Before I purchased the ACI policy, I reviewed my home owners through Travelers. Although the collection was covered, it was only so in the home, and for average market value, not replacement.  I have some priceless trains (to me) that I could never replace. Plus, the added value of coverage during shipment to me after purchase and and wherever I take them, all with no deductable made it a no brainer.  

Thanks,
- Mario

 

quote:

HELLO...has anyone noticed B&M's reply?I just changed my home owners.I discussed it in detail.I am covered.Nick

 

I am a big believer in "trust but verify".

What happens if your insurance agent is mistaken?

Do you understand the terms? For example, would the collection be valued at original cost, depreciated, or at "replacement value"?

What does "replacement value" mean? Let's say you have an authentic 1940 Lionel 700E (I wish), would the replacement be this year's scale Hudson?

Then there are the limits of the policy. The value of the trains is going to consume some of the limits, leaving less available money for other household contents like furniture, clothing, electronics, etc.

 

I'll stick with my TCA itemized policy. Values are established when the policy is put into effect, and no photos are required (to the best of my knowledge).

TCA

I also have a policy via J A Bash through the TCA.  My premium is $112.50 per year and after doing an very thorough excel spreadsheet inventory, I found that I needed to increase my coverage.  I choose the Blanket Policy which works well for me and have found that they're very easy to communicate with.  

C W,

You're so right. Granted, my homeowner's policy would cover my trains at original cost. Everything in my collection dates from 1916-1936. There's no way that I'd accept less than full replacement value.

I'm happy with my policy through TCA. I'll keep it that way for peace of mind.

My trains are insured through my home owners insurance.  Given that trains prices are only going down rather than up I am covered for full replacement value.  I have a letter from the insurance company in my safe deposit box saying just that.  Of course I had to increase the coverage of the policy to be sure I had everything covered.  I have NJ Manufacturers and they are simply the best.

I would think that if you have an extensive collection, separate insurance would probably be "a must."  And I suspect you would be getting replacement value there as well, whereas regular policies, unless specifically stated otherwise, would provide market value as of the date of loss.  One of the interesting things about homeowner's insurance today are the many separate riders one must purchase to get adequate coverage.  For example, if you live in a flood prone area, you have to get flood insurance.  Have some rifles?  You may need a special rider for that as well as for jewelry if you have some expensive items.  For extra liability protection, you can get higher coverage in a separate umbrella policy that covers your auto and home.  When I look at my homeowner's policy I see that coverage for my home continually goes up to reflect the supposed increase in market value which, of course, results in a higher premium.  The real perils are fire and theft in most cases as far as real risk is concerned.  Interestingly, every time the coverage for the home goes up, the policies also augment coverage for personal property (ie. contents) inside.  So, in essence, when your premium goes up for the increased value of your home, the insurer is providing increasing coverage for the furniture and appliances that you bought years ago that, in effect, have decreased in value.  Furthermore, most of us don't buy more or newer furniture every year to put in our already limited space in the home.  I can't put anymore stuff in my home to justify the increasing coverage for personal property as a component of increasing coverage for my home itself.  That is why I can't see that why content coverage cannot be provided separately and the consumer can choose to have trains insured thereunder, rather than having yet another separate rider.

No, the insurer could care less about market value.

 

The increase is due to the cost of building/rebuilding.

My understanding of insuring a home is that one has to have at least enough coverage for 80% of replacement cost in order to recover on a loss.  This is done to avoid under-insuring a home.  But what the coverage on the policy seems to show is that the increasing value therein is calculated by the insurer on more than just replacement.  There are older homes in my town that if they were simply insured at replacement would have a higher premium than a brand-new home with the same square footage simply because the materials in the older home are so much better.  But regardless of that, it is the increasing coverage for the home's contents as a percentage of the home's value (either market or replacement basis) that is a puzzle for me.  If we agree that a home's value increases each year (even using replacement as a basis), would its contents (even at replacement basis) increase proportionally? It is almost an assumption that the higher the value of the home means that its contents have a higher value, too.  Now if I pack my home with expensive antiques instead of average furniture, I might be underinsuring my contents.  But if I have average furniture that depreciates in value, why should I have to pay more in my premium for such coverage just because my home's value has gone up?  My point is that separate riders for antiques, firearms, jewelry, trains, etc. are a bonus for insurers anyway because the value of most people's contents never really approach the limits set forth in their policies to begin with and could conceivably also cover the losses of things normally set forth in separate riders.

I think a key word in insurance policies I've seen is "collectibles".

 

Sometimes there is an upper limit on the total insured collectibles regardless of what the total contents coverage is.

 

Whether that hard-to-find, seldom seen diesel from 2005 is categorized as a collectible or not isn't something I want to fight with the insurance company over. I figure I will have bigger overall problems to deal with after something catastrophic.

 

I chose the TCA insurance because I prefer to deal with an outfit that writes policies specifically for model trains.

 

Jim

 

The word "Agent" should help.  An agent can bind an insurer.  Best to get it in writing (e-mail will do) but you can take contemporaneous notes during a phone call.

 

I carry a lot of liability insurance, but minimal insurance on other things.  For instance, one of my airplanes has no "hull" insurance.  With the savings, I could have bought three more.

 

My homeowner's insurance provides some coverage, but if tomorrow my entire collection disappeared, I would survive nicely.  If I injure someone and get sued, I need a policy that goes to bat for me - I could not afford a million dollar judgment.

 

I figure my collection is in the neighborhood of a hundred grand.  Its true value is simply the pleasure I get from a hobby.

That's only to get replacement cost coverage on a partial loss. Otherwise, it's Actual Cash Value up to the policy limit(s).

 

You don't. It's included as a percentage with the structure coverage. You also get 10% of the policy limit for "appurtenant structures"... like a storage shed. Nobody needs $20K-$25K coverage on a 8x12 storage shed or a pair of clothesline poles, but you've got it.

If you get a certain automatic coverage for the value of appurtenant structures, like a storage shed, and that structure never approximates the value that is stated in the policy, then part of your premium for homeowner's insurance is paying for insuring something of less value than you need.  The same would be true for the home's contents. I can live in a large expensive home with sparse furnishings.  The premium I pay is not only for the value of the structure itself but also its contents.  Each time the premium increases for the home itself and the insurer is also insuring the contents by a percentage of the value of the home, regardless of what's inside, the premium I pay may be covering more than is necessary.  Even though my premium for the home automatically covers contents and appurtenant structures regardless of their actual value, its calculation is taking into consideration the assumption that the stuff I have inside and the shed is valued at that specified percentage of the home's value.  That's how underwriters set premiums. That may not be true, however, but the underwriters factor it into the premium anyway.  I can't believe that premiums are only based on the value of the home and the insurer just throws the home's contents into the coverage at a certain percentage for free.  The policyholder is still paying for it.  To be fair, although possibly unwieldy, the insurer should charge a premium for the home itself and a separate amount for contents depending on the amount the homeowner needs.  It's like car insurance: you may have to have liability coverage of a minimum amount, but nobody says you have to insure your older car for collision and glass breakage.  Plus, if you want more liability coverage, you can buy more insurance.  If an insurer wants separate riders for certain coverages now, certainly one can make a separate rider for contents and appurtenant structures, too, without making the assumption that the home's contents are a valued at a certain percentage of the home's value.  After all, I might not have a garage or storage shed; so such coverage for which I am paying is worthless.  That could be something I could save to insure my trains instead.  Another possibility to make it fair is to value jewelry, trains, etc. that are normally in a separate rider as part of the contents generally.  That way if I have casualty loss of $4,000 in furniture and appliances and clothes, but my coverage is for $10,000, my trains could be covered up to $6,000 without the necessity of a rider.  However, if I wanted more coverage because I felt that the trains were worth more than my existing coverage, I could purchase more insurance at my option.  That is why these riders for separate personal property often dovetail into what should normally be covered in the contents portion of the policy.  Once you set up a separate class of personal property whose value is not covered by the "contents" portion of your policy, you are automatically paying more for the risk than you  should have to in many cases.

The contents portion is really almost free.

 

Compare your premium on a homeowners policy compared to a renters/tenants policy with the same limits for contents.

I really don't know if I can make the comparison between renter's insurance and homeowners' insurance.  Renters do not own their premises, the landlord does.  So if the apartment burns down, the renter's loss is his/her personal property (ie. contents).  The renter's premium is based solely on contents.  With homeowners' insurance, the owner is insuring the home as well as its contents, so the premium cost is really a combination of both.

My point exactly.

 

Except renter's policies have liability coverage as well, making the only difference the structure portion.

 

 

Bob 2 correctly mentioned about an agent binding the insurer, and his advice about getting things in writing is particularly important.  Let me give you an example:  Years ago, a fellow purchased an expensive race horse located in another part of the country.  It was to be transported to him via vehicle and horse trailer.  After the sale and before the horse was transported, the buyer contacted his agent and explained to him that he wanted coverage for a race horse and left it up to the agent to secure the appropriate coverage since he, himself, was not in the insurance business.  Enroute to the destination, there was an accident, the horse was critically injured, and had to be destroyed.  When it time to collect on the loss, the insurer refused to pay because the agent secured a livestock floater policy rather than a separate policy for a race horse.  The final result had to be litigated wherein it was determined that the agent had the responsibility to procure the correct policy, not the buyer.  The agent had superior knowledge of the insurance marketplace to ascertain the appropriate policy not the consumer/buyer.  Therefore, the insurer had to pay for the loss because the agent was acting within the scope of his employment at the time he issued the insurance binder for the horse, albeit the wrong policy.  Now the result was favorable for the horse buyer, but he had to go through the court system just to get what he should have obtained anyway.  The moral:  Do not trust oral representations from agents.  You may secure your loss just like the horse buyer in my example, but, like him, you may also have to litigate the issue which, in itself, is a real headache.