or would it be cheaper just to let the thieves grab them easy and let insurance pay for the replacements?
Just so you know I had an employee that last year had his insurance canceled after his 3rd claim (guns & TV's stolen on 3rd claim). He Said it cost him alot more to get new insurance also.
Tums is right. I had trees fall on my house 3 different times over a 3 year span. The company that insured this house and every other house, building, & business that I had bought over a 35 year period canceled my home insurance because I had 4 claims - the 4th "claim" was when someone broke a window out of my car and stole a computer. When I called my agent she said don't file a claim because it might effect your insurance. So I didn't, but they still said this was a "claim" and so the records showed I had four claims and the &*%$#@#@s cancelled my homeowners. Naturally, I told them to %^&$#@#$*^% and cancelled them. It was much harder and more expensive to get new homeowners insurance when I bought my new house.
Being a recipient of the vast amount of information and advice you all graciously offer on PB, maybe now I can be a contributor. It's on the exciting subject of insurance but pertains to us all, especially for those who don't reside on their land.
Tums and Rmedgar are both correct on the cancellation of policies with multiple claims and the frustration of dealing with that, let alone finding a new carrier.
I have 25+ years in the business and I'm not writing in defense of the insurance industry, but merely to offer some insight from their perspective and the direction they've taken (or changed) from past years. There's many aspects of this business I don't agree with but hey, I'm a just small fish in a big pond (pun intended).
1.Homeowners insurance is an unprofitable line for all carriers. They just can't charge enough compared to claim-dollars paid out. This is why it's becoming increasingly difficult (and expensive) to insure just a home without other supporting lines (auto, life, etc.), or if you've had previous losses. I know I wouldn't want to sell a product that I know I'm going to lose money on!
2. This industry thrives on statistics! For one, once a person files a claim, their likelyhood (statistically) increases to file another, therefore in the insurance company's eyes the risk has increased as well. "Frequency and severity" is another major factor, So even if you've filed 3 claims with nothing covered or paid out, it can/will still count against you (frequency issues).
3. "Matching price to risk" is the biggest turnaround/change I've seen over the past 5-7 years, mainly due to the vast amount of data available to insurers. Past/previous losses for the individual and/or the property being insured and many other factors including credit history are taken into account. If a property has been burglarized, vandalized, suffered wind/hail damage, etc., especially more than once, they already consider it a higher risk.
There's so much more I could write about, that is relative to pond and landowners (and homeowners) but this is getting long enough already. I've written to Bob regarding a class I recently attended on meth-lab cleanup regarding damages and cleanup costs and how it relates especially to unoccupied landowners, to see if he felt it would be appropriate to post here. He said he would do some research and possibly write about it in an upcoming issue of PB. Once a meth-lab has been discovered, from initial quarantine to the [chemical] contamination cleanup and the costs (consider your HVAC, drains, septic, grounds, pondwater contaminations, etc.), it's absolutely shocking!
So on the issue of security, consider the costs and consequences of filing insurance claims, cancelled policies and possibly a meth-lab cleanup issue which may NOT be covered.
I know there's only so much we can do, but in addition to a very loud siren I would consider a system (motion, doors, windows, etc.) that reports to a centralized station (like ADT), police or sheriff. Getting someone there ASAP is critical to preventing what could be a catastrophic loss.
I know we don't want a monthly monitoring bill, or to spend $500 for cameras, or $1,000, or more,,, but what could be the cost if we don't?
Sorry this got so long,
Keith