|
|
|
|
|
by sponaugle
854 days ago
|
|
"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. |
|
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?)