[sponaugle]

The primary use case for a camera watching something that might get stolen is to provide proof of theft for insurance. In some cases it can provide clear evidence of what exactly was stolen, and in some cases information about who stole it.

Unless the camera has lasers, it isn't very good at stopping said theft. ;)

[prmoustache]

Why would your insurance require a proof of the theft? That is not how insurances work usually.

[Cheer2171]

My home insurance requires proof of theft.

Often you use a police report. My local police department is on an unofficial slowdown strike because they don't feel appreciated post-BLM. Possibly also because if they "forget" to file police reports or they "get lost in the system" then the official crime rate goes down. It took me over a month to get a police report I could send to insurance for a simple break in, and spent more of my labor by hourly wage trying to get that report than the cost insurance reimbursed.

[yukkuri]

Doing a "job action" like that because people have lost trust in your profession isn't going to restore that trust.

The only thing that will is to stop being trigger happy menaces to public safety.

[myself248]

Similar, but 6 or 7 years ago and with no discernible reason. The process of filing a police report and then compiling all the documentation required by insurance took longer and cost more by wage than I ultimately recovered through insurance.

I wish I could say it was still worth it because filing the report and providing the information about the theft gave the police additional info to use if they ever caught the thief, but nope. They didn't even want a copy of the video from the security cameras at the store in whose parking lot it happened. They made it acutely obvious that I was wasting their time by being there and that they had no interest whatsoever in doing what I naïvely thought was their job.

What an absolute waste of time.

[prmoustache]

> Similar, but 6 or 7 years ago and with no discernible reason. The process of filing a police report and then compiling all the documentation required by insurance took longer and cost more by wage than I ultimately recovered through insurance.

How could it cost more? Are you counting the time spent compiling the documentation?

[lopkeny12ko]

Of course you need to provide proof of theft. I can't simply go to my insurance, file a claim for a high-value item, and expect them to not ask any more questions. This would be rife with fraud (read: not a reasonable business model) otherwise.

[jt2190]

> Of course you need to provide proof of theft.

Generally filing a police report will suffice, if I’m not mistaken. Could you lie? Of course, but (1) it’s generally not in your best interest because the insurer might raise your rates and/or discontinue coverage, and (2) you’d be making a decision to make false statements to the police for purpose of fraud, which most reasonable people won’t do.

Other than perhaps using cameras as a means to deter thieves, I’m not sure that low-value (under USD 5000) items like bicycles are worth the time and effort for insurers to launch full investigations over.

[sponaugle]

"Other than perhaps using cameras as a means to deter thieves, I’m not sure that low-value (under USD 5000) items like bicycles are worth the time and effort for insurers to launch full investigations over."

I would agree, yet I have seen it happen. It is a somewhat difficult to predict path. I have seen some smaller claims (~$2000) take significantly longer and with more investigation than other very large (>$50,000) claims. I would assume there are certain metrics and algorithmic methods that effect how this plays out, so it is possible that someone who has had multiple small claims my get more attention than a single large claim.

Either way - The concept of the camera is simple in providing evidence in cases where that evidence can help you.

[jt2190]

> I would agree, yet I have seen it happen.

You've seen insurance claims denied because someone didn't have an unverified video that allegedly showed a theft taking place, even with a police report in hand? (Seriously: How would an insurer know that you hadn't arranged to have your brother-in-law pretend to steal your bike for the camera?)

[sponaugle]

You said "...bicycles are worth the time and effort for insurers to launch full investigations over."

and I said:

"I would agree, yet I have seen it happen."

I was precise in answering your precise statement.

I have seen claims for less than $5000 items create significant investigative and delay-inducing efforts from an insurer. A video of the theft would have, in some of those cases, reduced that effort. Having video evidence is in almost no circumstances going to increase the time it will take to get an insurance claim paid. By you having the video evidence, you have the choice if you want to disclose it. It is just upside that you control.

If you do not want to put a camera in your garage pointing at your mountain bike, by all means do not.

[NegativeK]

Just like there's an imperfect but effective barrier to lying to the cops for a police report, there's an imperfect but effective barrier to staging a theft on a video camera.

[prmoustache]

You don't need a proof but a police report.

[sponaugle]

There is tremendous variance with what will be 'required' to complete an insurance claim. In some cases a simple statement will suffice. In others, a police report is sufficient. In some cases the insurance company will want to 'investigate'. In many cases the underwriter will have some additional requests.

However it is always good to recognize the primary goals of the insurance parties - which is to not pay. They have strong incentives in that direction, and you providing proof of theft reduces the opportunities for those incentives to slow or reduce the payment.

It is especially true in cases of undeclared specific items, like an expensive mountain bike that you do not have a dedicated policy on.

[chrisco255]

Yeah all they require is a police report.