Insurance on Uninsurable Phones
I've never understood why anyone would want to get insurance through lock/line anyway, but I suppose it has certain limited advantages... paying for it on your cell phone bill, er, I guess that's really it.
Anyway, the point is that instead of using lock/line or a shady 3d party online phone insurance dealer, just talk to whoever provides your car/renters/home owner's policy and get a personal property rider attached to your existing insurance policy. Not only are they, for the most part, cheaper than lock/line, but in the event of a loss, you get a check for the value of your property that you can use to buy whatever phone you want instead of a possibly refurbished replacement phone. The only limitation is that the deductible is often...
(continues)
Anyway, the point is that instead of using lock/line or a shady 3d party online phone insurance dealer, just talk to whoever provides your car/renters/home owner's policy and get a personal property rider attached to your existing insurance policy. Not only are they, for the most part, cheaper than lock/line, but in the event of a loss, you get a check for the value of your property that you can use to buy whatever phone you want instead of a possibly refurbished replacement phone. The only limitation is that the deductible is often...
(continues)
...
For at least two national insurance carriers I've personally checked with on behalf of customers, a personal property rider can be attached to a renter's policy. For one, it was only about $11 a year for up to a $500 loss (with a $100 deductible).
...
also what is policy of insurer on how many times you could possible use in say 2 year period. most drop the coverage after 1 st use.
...
Phones are to damn expensive not to have ins. offered for them. That's some BS. Turned me off of AT&T when I heard that on here and verified it by calling a Cingular distributor.
...
While I can't possibly imagine this being a sincere opinion rather than merely an attempt to take a shot at AT&T, for argumentation's sake, I'll assume it's your honest opinion.
You do realize that insurance is a for-profit enterprise, right? As in, the sole purpose of a phone company offering insurance is to add to their profit margins? And wireless companies don't have to rely on reputation building to market their insurance products- they practically have you as a captive audience, and that makes them especially dangerous. While a national insurance company has to ensure they don't do anything too unscrupulous because they depend on their reputation to gather and retain customers, many people don't even think of the insurance offere...
(continues)
You do realize that insurance is a for-profit enterprise, right? As in, the sole purpose of a phone company offering insurance is to add to their profit margins? And wireless companies don't have to rely on reputation building to market their insurance products- they practically have you as a captive audience, and that makes them especially dangerous. While a national insurance company has to ensure they don't do anything too unscrupulous because they depend on their reputation to gather and retain customers, many people don't even think of the insurance offere...
(continues)
...
I'm pretty sure that at&t isn't making money off asurions insurance expense. They offer it to make customers happy, just like 30 day return policies.
...
While this is a common misconception, it is untrue. Reps make no commission off of insurance feature attachments only due to local laws requiring comission on insurance sales to be limited to licensed insurance salespeople. In fact, as of a couple years ago, and probably still today, salespeople in I believe Texas and one other state did in fact make commission off of insurance sales. Note also that (suspiciously) asurion also takes care of the roadside assistance program, a known money-maker for AT&T.
...
spectator said:
While this is a common misconception, it is untrue. Reps make no commission off of insurance feature attachments only due to local laws requiring comission on insurance sales to be limited to licensed insurance salespeople. In fact, as of a couple years ago, and probably still today, salespeople in I believe Texas and one other state did in fact make commission off of insurance sales. Note also that (suspiciously) asurion also takes care of the roadside assistance program, a known money-maker for AT&T.
UPDATE: I checked with a rep in texas who confirmed that, as of two days ago, texas reps were still making comission off of insurance sales. Obviously, if they're getting comission for it...
(continues)
...
It was reported to me as comission through AT&T for selling the lock/line a.k.a. asurion insurance that goes on the bill.
...
Spectator, I just called my Home Owner's Ins. Co. (The Mercer Ins. Group, Cherry Hill, NJ 856-795-0100) about adding this to my policy and they had no idea what the hell I was talking about! Any suggestions on your part. I am seriously contemplating on switching from Verizon to AT&T for the Blackberry Curve, but I am not gonna buy an expensive phone like that without it being insured (like my Treo is thru Verizon). I know, I've read all the comments on here about the "so called insurance" offered by there carriers but it's better that having none when our phone breaks down and haing to spend $500 out of pocket to replace it. Please help me if you can?
...
It is a terrible risk to insure a phone in the hands of a young person. It should cost $200 a year,
I wouldnt insure it either. The very fact that you want insurance makes it all the more the risk.
I wouldnt insure it either. The very fact that you want insurance makes it all the more the risk.
...
AvgJoe said:
It is a terrible risk to insure a phone in the hands of a young person. It should cost $200 a year,
I wouldnt insure it either. The very fact that you want insurance makes it all the more the risk.
Funny, I get many calls from older people that break their phones as well.
...
AvgJoe, what the heck are you talkin about. Firstly It'll be my phone and I am a 36yr old man. Secondly, things happen like theft, dropping of phone, or the phone simply malfunctioning, all of which may require ins. for service or replacement. Insuring valuables is the smart way to go. From your comment looks like your not to smart!!!!
...
ErikNupe said:
AvgJoe, what the heck are you talkin about. Firstly It'll be my phone and I am a 36yr old man. Secondly, things happen like theft, dropping of phone, or the phone simply malfunctioning, all of which may require ins. for service or replacement. Insuring valuables is the smart way to go. From your comment looks like your not to smart!!!!
Age in years means nothing.....Grow up and Take personal responsibility man. Its not a good risk and therefore its not offered. What about that don't you understand?
...
All this whining because some ELSE don't want to take on YOUR responsibility at any cost is amazing.
And guess what. The phones will STILL sell because there are those who HaVE to have the latest and not so greatest thing to show off to gain acceptance and envy from others. But thats another issue/
And guess what. The phones will STILL sell because there are those who HaVE to have the latest and not so greatest thing to show off to gain acceptance and envy from others. But thats another issue/
...
AvgJoe,
Why don't you remain just as your handle states,an AVERAGE JOE? Stop trying to come across like some "Intellectual Daddy Type". Obviously we all know the risks of owning a cell phone, A$$!!! None the less why not be smart and have insurance on a valuable purchase. Therefore if AT$T chooses not to offer insurance, we smart indivaduals (obviously you not included), seek to be insured elsewhere!!! So next time Dumb A$$, keep your sarcastic opinions to yourself. I am handling my business, why don't you go and handle yours!!!!!
Why don't you remain just as your handle states,an AVERAGE JOE? Stop trying to come across like some "Intellectual Daddy Type". Obviously we all know the risks of owning a cell phone, A$$!!! None the less why not be smart and have insurance on a valuable purchase. Therefore if AT$T chooses not to offer insurance, we smart indivaduals (obviously you not included), seek to be insured elsewhere!!! So next time Dumb A$$, keep your sarcastic opinions to yourself. I am handling my business, why don't you go and handle yours!!!!!
...
ErikNupe said:
AvgJoe,
Why don't you remain just as your handle states,an AVERAGE JOE? Stop trying to come across like some "Intellectual Daddy Type". Obviously we all know the risks of owning a cell phone, A$$!!! None the less why not be smart and have insurance on a valuable purchase. Therefore if AT$T chooses not to offer insurance, we smart indivaduals (obviously you not included), seek to be insured elsewhere!!! So next time Dumb A$$, keep your sarcastic opinions to yourself. I am handling my business, why don't you go and handle yours!!!!!
Kiss my ass you whining sniveling baby. Momma cannot protect you. You have to take personal responsibility.
Obviously you want someone ELSE to take the...
(continues)
...
36 years old and you cannot handle a $500 loss and want someone else to pay for your woe.
Man you need a better job.
If you cannot survive a $500 loss in your financial situation What are you doing even wanting to own a $500 cell phone...
Logic anyone?
Man you need a better job.
If you cannot survive a $500 loss in your financial situation What are you doing even wanting to own a $500 cell phone...
Logic anyone?
...
While I certainly can't guarantee that every insurance company will offer this type of policy, I did verify this information about one year ago with both Allstate and State Farm. They both called it a personal property rider, but other companies may have different names.
Basically, just ask them what kind of policy they would draw up to insure a single piece of jewelry such as an engagement ring. That's why the policies were so cheap- they were designed for much more costly items, but the principle was the same.
I'd be very interested to hear what happens with Mercer, since it would probably set a good exemplar for what others can expect from smaller insurance companies.
As a tangential side point, I'd like to throw in a word of caution...
(continues)
Basically, just ask them what kind of policy they would draw up to insure a single piece of jewelry such as an engagement ring. That's why the policies were so cheap- they were designed for much more costly items, but the principle was the same.
I'd be very interested to hear what happens with Mercer, since it would probably set a good exemplar for what others can expect from smaller insurance companies.
As a tangential side point, I'd like to throw in a word of caution...
(continues)
...
Jeeeze. If you cannot afford to lose $500 without major pain What the HELL are you doing BUYING A $500 PHONE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Something is wrong with that picture.
Something is wrong with that picture.
...
chocolateman85006 said:
You've been cranky these last two days. What's up?
It gets to me when kids whine about not getting available insurance on a ohone they cant afford to lose. Why pay $500 for a phone if you need insurance on it?
Insure against MAJOR catastrophe and financial ruin. Not $500. The extended warranty business makes a ton of money on such dweebs.
I can afford a $3000 TV but I can't afford to take a $3000 loss......Amazing.
...
I can't blame ya on that; but please know this: older people bitch about it too.
...
Forgive me if it sounds like I'm belittling you, but am I to understand that your sincere conviction is that only the wealthy are allowed to possess nice things?
So, if I'm able to save up money for a couple months and buy myself a particularly nice gadget that will make me happy and maybe a little proud that I was able to save responsibly instead of buying on credit, I should be estopped from purchasing that gadget simply because I don't have the financial means to buy another one if something happens to it?
Or, is it your opinion that anyone so incredible careless as to lose a gadget... ever... doesn't deserve the right to own gadgets in the first place?
Or perhaps you just feel that it is beneath insurance companies to insure any...
(continues)
So, if I'm able to save up money for a couple months and buy myself a particularly nice gadget that will make me happy and maybe a little proud that I was able to save responsibly instead of buying on credit, I should be estopped from purchasing that gadget simply because I don't have the financial means to buy another one if something happens to it?
Or, is it your opinion that anyone so incredible careless as to lose a gadget... ever... doesn't deserve the right to own gadgets in the first place?
Or perhaps you just feel that it is beneath insurance companies to insure any...
(continues)
...
spectator said:...
Forgive me if it sounds like I'm belittling you, but am I to understand that your sincere conviction is that only the wealthy are allowed to possess nice things?
So, if I'm able to save up money for a couple months and buy myself a particularly nice gadget that will make me happy and maybe a little proud that I was able to save responsibly instead of buying on credit, I should be estopped from purchasing that gadget simply because I don't have the financial means to buy another one if something happens to it?
Or, is it your opinion that anyone so incredible careless as to lose a gadget... ever... doesn't deserve the right to own gadgets in the first place?
Or perhaps you just feel that it is benea
(continues)
...
Spectator, I definately agree with your post. To each his own. I guess AvgJoe likes to "try" and feel superior to the rest of us "peons" standing up there on Mt. Olympus. Hiding behind a screen attempting to be knowledgable isn't impressive. In fact he sounds foolish! He's the only one who doesn't see it (which proves my point entirely)!!!
...
