What is annoying to me is that in this internet-connected age, the storage units I see still don't have better per-unit security.
Just a phone alert to say "door to unit #xyz has been opened" would be a huge improvement. Wire up a cheap webcam for extra credit.
> I'm not even sure what the notarization step was accomplishing: the inventory sheets aren't affidavits.
The percentage of people who see the word "notarized" alongside "inventory sheet" and simply give up must be quite high. Notarization accomplishes nothing besides causing a headache. Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
Notarization just proves it was you who signed something, it has nothing to do with the contents of the document.
Unfortunately a lot of people think notarization gives some kind of legitimacy to a document, or likely in this case, it's probably not the hassle of getting it notarized, but used as a scare tactic to prevent some people from committing insurance fraud by listing inflated or made-up items (people might conflate it with perjury).
It proves not just who, but when. This can be pretty relevant in a number of situations.
It also makes it feel more serious, deterring insurance fraud. Since it has only upsides, no downsides, for the insurance company (except that they'll get bad ratings from customers which they clearly don't care about in this scenario, as most customers don't shop around for them), of course they demand it.
> Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
This is why if you want actual insurance (not "check the 'you must have insurance' box") you don't pick the cheapest company and check reviews, ignoring any reviews that don't mention a claim.
That, and it would make it harder to claim mistake/accident if the insurance company tried to Prosecute for insurance fraud.
The number of cases of people adding random expensive things that would be added to insurance inventories during a claim has to approach 90% if there is no potential for consequences.
I used to work security and making rounds in a place like this would give me chills. Running into thieves at 3 in the morning is one of the most terrifying things you will ever experience.
How did you deal with such terrifying situations?
There are a million reasons why you should never do this, but I would be tempted to use storage unit #3 as the place to keep my land mine collection.
Edit: “You have a land mine collection?”
No, but after storage unit #2, I’d daydream about starting one.
I imagine it'd be a lot cheaper and legally-viable to store your collection of electronic burglar alarms. Especially if they dial a human when triggered.
There are some neat videos out there where people make their own with Arduinos etc.
How about (accidentally) still charged high voltage capacitors?
Where I live the "accidental" part doesn't really get you off the hook. Negligence is better than intention but still.
If it kills someone or causes grievous bodily harm, it's still on you. Yes, even if it's a burglar. You also have to think about the fully legal situations when it's firefighter or a cop with a warrant. Or an edge case like a stupid kid.
Where I grew up, problem thieves would just go missing, to be found years later dead at the bottom of a mine shaft.
Do they typically stay charged for only a few days at most?
Well, you might need to stop by frequently to visit them.
Booby-trapping your property is illegal even in the reddest of red states.
That would be one of the million reasons why I wouldn’t do it.
I didn’t say I’d actually do it. I’d surely daydream of it.
id put a bank of ultra bright white LED lights facing the door and a speaker with a recording saying this footage has been sent to a remote location. thank you for closing the door behind you.
At this stage I'd probably thank thieves for clearing out my garage.
Last time I cleared out my old stuff there was nothing I could do to get people to take most of the crap at zero cost.
Having to pay the fence to get your stuff back is so California. In the more civilized states pawnbrokers are expected to know the risks of buying potentially stolen property, and if they do they get to eat it.
Maybe that's why property crimes short of grand theft aren't really enforced in California?
> property crimes short of grand theft aren't really enforced in California
There is a hope we will undo this soon.
This is heartbreaking. The storage facility insurance scam is one that needs to be investigated by the government. It's a tremendous rip off and covers nothing.
Most insurance in most industries is a racket.
I wonder if an insurance company operated as a co-op would be a better arrangement. Interested parties pooling money to pay out to the one unfortunate one who has a disaster. Could potentially invest the pool in super low risk investments as well for a little upside.
Mutual insurance companies have been a thing for hundreds of years. Some well known US mutual insurance companies are State Farm, Amica, Mutual of Omaha, and most non Elevance Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliated insurance companies.
Good old insurance companies, always looking for ways to get out of having to pay out for claims.
I mean, I guess it is their job, so can't really fault them for that.
It's not their job. It would be easy to adopt laws requiring insurance companies to separate insurance pool money (used to pay out insurance) and operational money (used to pay employees and profits), and have these separated when showing the price of insurance. That would reduce the moral hazard of insurance companies paying profit out of the pool.
I've always wondered how expensive a good insurance policy is. One that is actually good for you the policy holder and enforced by contract. Like no haggling over market value because the items are insured for specific amounts.
homeowner's insurance approaches this if you know your agent (as in you've physically seen them) and the two of you have an understanding that you're going to be recording the purchase price (or market price, whichever is lower), date of purchase, serial numbers, and any other identification of all objects you want insured. If you do this, my understanding is that they cannot then do "replace toaster: $8; replace TV, Onn brand 42inch $170;" and so on. If your item's market price goes up in the meantime, the policy will have verbiage as to how that gets resolved. For example if i have a policy on something that is no longer being made, i can either be reimbursed for the price or a suitable replacement.
Generic, cookie-cutter, boilerplate policies probably net the insurance companies a fair amount of profit. People who actually care about the actual items they are insuring are possibly the highest risk, and as such, the premiums are also the highest. In my state, an umbrella policy that would cover my home, land, frontage, vehicles, farm equipment, well pump, etc is ~$500/month, with limits of around $1mm (this was 8 years ago or so, they probably went up in premiums). a half million on two vehicles is only about $200/month and homeowners varies but is ~<$100/month. The issue is how i'd get the rest of the stuff i said insured, because in my state, the homeowner's policy doesn't cover anything but the home (and contents to a limited extent) and whatever you call a tree on your property falling down and causing injury or damage not due to negligence.
The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives, the result is our current society.
> The international code of insurances says goods cannot be insured for more than their worth. The intent was to avoid perverse incentives
Would you mind explaining what the perverse incentive is here? If I want to insure a pillow that I claim is worth $1 million, why should it matter what others are willing to pay for it?
If they let me insure my stuff for 100x of what it's worth, I lose all the incentive to prevent damage.
Even in the legit cases the insurance companies have to account for the "don't worry, it's insured" mindset. Keeping the ceiling on the insurance value is intended to leave at least some of the incentive to prevent the damage with the owner.
The insurance companies cannot rely solely on the "don't be careless" contract clause.
depends on the premium, obviously
What depends on the premium? In my mind, you state the item and the value, they tell you the premium they would cover it at. Where's the perverse incentive, and why is it relevant what anybody else would pay for it?
Suggestion to authors: be pithy
It’s 3rd on HN right now, I’m not sure they need to change their approach much.
Observation: no one asked
If you use the disc lock the storage facility sells, you'll likely
pay an additional markup on it, but it's also guaranteed to be
acceptable to their partner insurance company.
If they are deemed unacceptable, I now get to make the argument of negligence on the part of the storage facility, as they are the ones who sold it to me and I can reasonably assume that since they suggested it, and the insurance policy, that it is fit for purpose. I might then be able to make the case of fraud.