[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.