insuring books

Well a fireproof safe would work just as well.

Do you guys know what you are talking about? Do you buy expensive editions to
hide them in a fire proof safe? If you're not educated, you will immediately
ruin them with mold or mildew -you need a dehumidifier in the safe.... you
insure books to PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT, not necessarily to replace them -for
some, replacing is IMPOSSIBLE.

If I'm not mistaken, the insurance company will accept whatever estimate
one makes for the value of one's collection and set the premium accordingly.

You are ENTIRELY mistaken. Special editions need to be documented and
appraised. They are not fools, they will not allow you to place a two thousand
dollar value on a common paperback. When you buy insurance, you are a valued
customer. When you CLAIM insurance, you are an arson. They will attempt not
to pay for expensive collections without documentation -only fair.

You forgot insects, mildew, mice, vandelism, theft.....

How does one determine the values? I think of the value of the book
in terms of the difficulty I would have replacing it.

You begin with the receipt. What YOU paid for it. Equity through appreciation
in value is tough. Retailers already include a markup when they sell it to you
the collector. You will be lucky to recoup YOUR losses, never mind your
"current value".

The rates are based on what you insure and it's value and other factors.

Sounds like Mr. Haney on Green Acres. You go low, they go high and the
prices can change with the weather.

I've talked to some people in the industry about insuring artworks
and books.
I also had an experience filing a claim (no books, but I saw the process).

There are some companies that sell separate policies for art and other
collectibles. These companies are much more helpful about appraisal
procedures and determining values in advance.
Unfortunately, they are set up for high value items and unless your
collection is worth over 100,000 US Dollars it wouldn't be worth it.
[They have high minimum premiums.]


(H Schinske)
I tried to talk my plain-vanilla insurance agent into some kind of rider that
stated simply that I had X number of books and wanted to insure them at some
relatively small amount each (say five dollars). Didn't fly. They refused to do
anything that wasn't item-level, which simply doesn't make sense for a whole
lot of items none of which is individually worth that much.

This is in the US, where I'm sure the rules and laws are quite different (and
may vary from state to state as well, who knows).


Riders are designed for large value items or items not covered under
your regular policy. Insurance companies do not usually deal
with a "collection" of items - that has the problem of how to value a
partial loss. If your collection is not over the limit for "personal
property" under your general policy, then you are covered. Just
document the library in the same manner you would document the
furniture or clothes - take pictures and have an inventory.
The rider would actually be duplicating existing coverage unless
the value is high or if the rider is for "replacement value" while
your regular policy is current value.

If there is a loss, you will have an argument over the value of
a used book.
They might accept $5 per book for hardcovers or might point to
a thrift store and claim $2 per book. Or, they might find an
excuse to deny the claim completely.

This happened to me. The adjuster seemed helpful, agreed with my
values and was optimistic about the claim - then weeks later I got a
letter informing me that the claim was denied because of an
exclusion in the policy - I sent them proof that their
reason for denying the claim was invalid. They simply ignored me.
I discussed this with my agent (who was actually knowledgeable
and competent) and he said that I would most likely win if I took
them to court. Then I told him the amount.
Since the claim was small he recommended against it unless I had
lots of spare cash for a lawyer and/or lots of time to spend on
this. No lawyer would take a small case on contingency, so I would
have to spend a thousand dollars or more to pursue it and maybe get
awarded my expenses back if I won. [I could try small claims court,
but then I would have to spend many more hours learning the
system and rules.] I would not get paid for all the hours I
would have to spend on this. [Plus you have to show up for the
court dates - missing work or classes - and you do not get much
choice.]

You have little power unless you are ready and able to take them to court.
They do this all the time, so they know what to do to make it difficult,
expensive, and time consuming for you.


Allan Adler wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, the insurance company will accept whatever estimate
one makes for the value of one's collection and set the premium accordingly.
So, setting the value equal to the full replacement cost, as I've indicated
the method of computing it, is not at all unreasonable. It just might be
expensive to pay the premium.

You are mistaken - that would be inviting fraud by insuring common
items for large amounts and having them stolen or destroyed.

You can insure for current value (used prices or depreciated value)
or for replacement value (a new book - or comparable collectable copy
if appropriate) There is no value allowed for your time to find
replacements and they will not help. For replacement value, you will
have to prove the value for each item.

I looked into what is proof of value for items that are collectable.
It was difficult to get an answer from them for a hypothetical case.
They wanted an appraisal by a certified appraiser (certified by
specific associations only). I then talked to an appraiser who
was certified and she said that the insurance company will sometimes
dispute the appraisal during the claim process [of course they
accept the higher premium for the value you stated when buying
the policy, but may dispute it when you file the claim.]



Brian

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

They might accept $5 per book for hardcovers or might point to
a thrift store and claim $2 per book. Or, they might find an
excuse to deny the claim completely.

This happened to me. The adjuster seemed helpful, agreed with my
values and was optimistic about the claim - then weeks later I got a
letter informing me that the claim was denied because of an
exclusion in the policy - I sent them proof that their
reason for denying the claim was invalid. They simply ignored me.
I discussed this with my agent (who was actually knowledgeable
and competent) and he said that I would most likely win if I took
them to court. Then I told him the amount.
Since the claim was small he recommended against it unless I had
lots of spare cash for a lawyer and/or lots of time to spend on
this. No lawyer would take a small case on contingency, so I would
have to spend a thousand dollars or more to pursue it and maybe get
awarded my expenses back if I won. [I could try small claims court,
but then I would have to spend many more hours learning the
system and rules.] I would not get paid for all the hours I
would have to spend on this. [Plus you have to show up for the
court dates - missing work or classes - and you do not get much
choice.]

You have little power unless you are ready and able to take them to court.
They do this all the time, so they know what to do to make it difficult,
expensive, and time consuming for you.


Actually, there was one more very inexpensive option open to you, and that
involves writing to your state insurance commissioner and asking for an
investigation. Every state has a Department of Insurance, and one of the
things they do is investigate complaints by the public about unfair claims
practices. They have the power to order the company to pay the claim. They
can also fine the company, or pull their license if there is a pattern of
abuse.

There is usually a form for you to complete, stating the reasons you feel
your claim was unjustly denied, and then the Department of Insurance will
write to the company. The company will have a "compliance officer" who will
investigate internally and hope and pray they can support the decision of
the claims' department. Sometimes, if the company was clearly wrong, they
will fold right away. ("Oops. We had a new adjustor! The letter got shredded
by accident! The check was issued on 4-12-02, but never cashed, we'll send
another." Whatever.) More often, the company will try to offer documentation
to support the company's position. Sometimes they win, but often they don't.

I can guarantee, however, that an insurance company won't ignore a letter
from the Department of Insurance unless they are run by total idiots with a
corporate death wish.

Alice
(I sit beside the compliance officer.)

Allan Adler writes:

For me, it is not about getting monetary compensation for the books.
If the insurance company came to me and offered to buy my books for an
amount equal to the probable claim on the policy, I would turn it
down, since I want the books, not the money. So the problem is how to
guarantee that the entire collection can be replaced by another collection
containing the same information. That is a problem the cost of whose solution
has to be assessed one book at a time, even if they aren't particularly
rare (and they aren't).

It has been pointed out by various respondents that one can't expect an
insurance company to honor one's estimate of the value (in my sense of
replacement cost) of one's book collection. It has been pointed out by
one in particular that the entire premise of my concept is at odds with
the point of view of book collectors, namely that it really matters whether
the book is a first edition or a cheap paperback reprint with the same
content. The available modes of insuring books are apparently based on that
point of view, not on mine.

There is, however, another approach to insurance which I ran across when
I wanted to insure my computer. A moving company, for example, will insure
your possessions during a move, but its concept of insurance doesn't cover
the functionality of the computer. As long as it still makes for as good
a piece of furniture as it did before the move, it has not been damaged,
in the view of the moving company. I learned about an insurance company
called Safeware which did insure functionality. Their deal was that if
your computer system was damaged, they would replace it by a comparable
system. I'm not sure exactly how they made money, but I think that apart
from the premiums, they also gained from the fact that by the time anything
stomped on your computer, it would be a lot cheaper to replace than it was
to buy in the first place.

I think a similar insurance concept could be used for private libraries
for insuring the content of books. It might take an insurer with excellent
access to replacement copies. Maybe this is something that Amazon might
want to explore, for example.

Returning to the respondent who objected that collectors are more interested
in rarity and art than in content, I'm glad to have had attention drawn
to that point. In common parlance, someone who has acquired a lot of books
can be spoken of as having a collection and might informally be described
as a collector. This is to be distinguished from what one be called a
Collector, with a capital C, who fits the more specialized concept used
by respondent. I certainly fit the description "collector" but not the
description "Collector". It might have been the intention of those who
started rec.collecting.books to provide a forum for Collectors, but
at the same time this forum is the closest thing I have found to a
forum relevant to my needs as a collector. If I'm mistaken on that
point, I'll be glad to know it. I suppose there is also soc.libraries.talk,
but I think there the focus is on public libraries, not private ones.

Regarding the difference in focus between collectors and Collectors,
I was once sitting in a university coffee shop reading an old volume
of Mathematische Annalen from the 19th century. Someone wanted to know
what the old book was and to look at it. I showed it to him and he started
telling me I couldn't get much for it. I realized after talking to him
for a few minutes that he did not realize that people actually read books,
instead of just buying, selling and appraising them. I don't think this
newsgroup is populated with such individuals and, accordingly, I'm inclined
to think that collectors in the wide sense belong here too.

Ignorantly,
Allan Adler


************************************************** **************************
* *
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT Artificial *
* Intelligence Lab. My actions and comments do not reflect *
* in any way on MIT. Moreover, I am nowhere near the Boston *
* metropolitan area. *
* *
************************************************** **************************