Originally Posted by
hamsey
Looked into it. Covered under homeowners but not crashes. If I want crash protection it was going to run me $160 yr. Opted not to get it because if I did crash it would be a claim which means all my policies go up.
Agreed. the standard lecture:
Originally Posted by merlinextraligh
The most basisc principal of insurance is: Do not insure against risks you can afford to absorb. Given that no one should own a bike that is so expensive in relation to their means that they could not afford to absorb its loss, no one should pay money to insure their bike. ( If you spent so much money on your bike that you could not afford its loss, then you have greater financial planning issues.)
The reason you do not insure against risks you can afford to absorb is that it costs money to buy insurance. Insurance companies when they agree to underwrite your risk do so at price that is( with investment earnings) more than they will pay out to the policy holders they will insure. If that were not so, they would not make a profit and would not be in business. Thus, on average over time, it will always be more expensive to buy insurance than it will be to forgoe insurance, and effectively self insure your own risk.
Now there are certain things for which you need insurance, either because the risk is so great you cannot afford to absorb it (such as your house) or because it is required for you to do so by contract. (such as collision insurance on a financed car). In these cases you don't insure because it's good bet, but because you can't afford not to do so. That's not the case with the bike.
And as you point out making a claim on your homeowners for a small amount is a bad idea, raising your rates, and potentially even leading to cancellation.
Moreover, your cost of insuring a $5,000 bike on your homeowner's is not just the cost of the rider, it's the cost of carrying that low of deductible.