phughes

So, in summation, had you purchased insurance, your loss would have been covered. You chose to not buy insurance so your loss was not covered. So the purchase of insurance was a voluntary decision. Had the insurance been bought, and the bikes been lost, the insurance would have been paid out. So, it is a product that can be bought voluntarily, the benefits of which have been clearly explained, benefits paid upon loss or damage of item insured. So not a scam, instead it is a product, the value of which you receive according to certain conditions spelled out before you buy.

But did they find the bike?

indyfabz

I hear you. I am the same way. While much of what I have in the way of accounts are protected by federal and/or state law, some are not.

I looked up PA law. One interesting aspect is that not only are bibles protected from judgment, so are sewing machines belonging to seamstresses or those belonging to and used by private families as long as they are not for hire or sale.

indyfabz

The bike was replaceable. What were not were the custom Robert Beckman racks that were attached to it. The matching panniers were designed to work only with his racks. Maybe this will finally be the winter I pay a visit to either Bilenky or Firth & Wilson to see if they can modify my current racks to accept the Beckman panniers. In addition to being terrific pieces of equipment, they have a lot of sentimental value. Did about 10,000 of loaded touring with them in '99-'00.

amazinmets73

I've alreaded conceded scam was a poor choice of words.

I reiterate, who says they would have honored the insurance even if I had indeed purchased it?

Koyote

This seems like a good way to excuse your lack of foresight.

FWIW, I've filed all kinds of insurance claims over the past 40 years: theft and three roofs damaged by hailstorms (homeowners ins), auto claims, broken camera equipment (special policy), life insurance for deceased relative, etc. None have been denied.

amazinmets73

Lack of foresight? I've shipped numerous other products post this incident, including several bikes. I did not purchase additional insurance. Why? Because I know I lose money on average purchasing it. Sure, you can always get unlucky as was the case here, but it's a winning approach on average.

Koyote

I hope you never wreck your car, or fall asleep in bed while smoking a cigarette, or...

amazinmets73

I will say I'm very meticulous about checking receipts and tracking numbers post the lost of the bikes. If I had been prior to the incident I would have spotted the error.

amazinmets73

Thanks, same here.

phughes

I guess you'll never know. What I know is, when I bought insurance on a shipment, and it was lost, they paid. I was returning my wedding band after we first bought it, in exchange for a smaller size, and it was lost. The insurance paid in full. I was happy I bought it.

pdlamb

So with your bad experience this time around, is the money you've saved by not buying insurance over the long haul a net gain or a net loss?

Polaris OBark

Likewise. Unfortunately, this is our reward for not burning.

amazinmets73

Net loss.

pdlamb

Don't forget to file for a new roof after hail damage. (Although I've paid for that roof over the last dozen or so years through increased premiums.)

pdlamb

I've always thought the case studies my friends in business classes had were more about Monday morning quarterbacking than learning critical thinking or whatever reason was given for them. But here you're bemoaning a net loss, while arguing against buying the insurance that would have protected you against that loss. Ben Franklin noted, "Experience is a hard school, but a fool will learn in no other." Wonder what he would have said about someone who did not learn from their own experience?

Koyote

"Thrice divorced."

phughes

I really hope this gets resolved for you.

amazinmets73

Not sure I follow your reasoning. Yes, obviously I'd like to recover the bikes. Doesn't change the fact the purchasing insurance is a losing proposition.

We are all aware (I would hope) that purchasing lottery tickets is on average a losing proposition by a significant margin. However, we can find numerous instances of individuals who've made a net profit playing the lottery. Does that invalidate the fact that lottery players lose money on average?

Same reasoning applies here. Yes, I may indeed have experienced negative variance, but purchasing insurance is still on average a losing proposition.

amazinmets73

Thanks ☺️

tomato coupe

Nope. The idea behind insurance is to avoid financial losses that exceed what a person can comfortably handle. There are no large negative outcomes to be avoided with lottery tickets.

amazinmets73

Yea, I can agree with that. If I were shipping a package valued at $17,000 as opposed to $1,700, yes, I would insure it.

indyfabz

We don't really get serious hail like that in the city. At least not in my part.

When I was touring in the Black Hills I got hit with a pretty bad storm while in camp. I think the only thing that saved my tent fly was the fact that I was pitched under a small tree. The next morning I noticed a couple of car repair places advertising that they handle insurance claims for hail damage.

njkayaker

No.

Insurance exists to reduce risk. Lotteries aren't doing that.

Essentially, the point of insurance is to spread the risk (cost of a loss) across a population. That is, everybody is bearing the cost of small insurance payments to avoid a small risk of a large loss.

That service isn't going to be free.

The other thing you are missing is the issue of liability (reimbursing damage to other people's property).

One major point of requiring automobile liability insurance is to avoid having the person whose property is damaged from having to sue the responsible party to recover damages.

That is, it avoids the requirement of a civil suit and the risk of the person responsible not being able to pay damages.

That's a service too (which isn't going to be free).

Koyote

NOT the same reasoning, for reasons that have already been pointed out.

Honest question: do you own a home, or a car that's worth more than a few thousand dollars?

amazinmets73

"Essentially, the point of insurance is to spread the risk (cost of a loss) across a population. That is, everybody is bearing the cost of small insurance payments to avoid a small risk of a large loss."

Seriously, do you guys read any of my responses? I fully understand this and have already addressed it, as evidenced by my prior statement, which I will reiterate verbatim:


"Respondents, I am not saying we as a society shouldn't utilize insurance. It's probably better if everyone has slightly less money as opposed to most people having slightly more and a not insignificant percentage having their lives devastated."


"That service isn't going to be free."

Well, obviously.