I'm curious, in a total loss, are standard personal property/contents limits sufficent to provide full recovery.
Too low, higher enough to cover most/all situations?

With increased computers, HDTV, etc., or empty nesters downsizing from bigger homes to smaller homes, does one-size-fits-all percent of the building value still make sense?

Why do you ask?

Yes, my background is in underwriting, but from the other end of the spectrum with complex global property insurance programs.
I now do consulting related to improving the quality of exposure data used by carriers, reinsurers, and others for their decision making.
I understand the issues with commercial valuation, but I have no direct experience with residential.
I see commercial valuation issues with buildings, contents, and busines interruption, and with residential building values.
It seems odd that I haven't seen press on residential contents - so I thought I'd look under that rock.
Being on the front-lines, I was hoping the forum members could shed a light.

Thanks.

I am not on the front lines for this cat, but then that neever kept any of us from sounding off before.

Out of curiosity (just in case OKC Larry wants to know why I ask), I'm wondering if current inflationary trends could create a sudden and unexpected problem with co-insurance. For instance, what might have been 80% of new construction cost or BPP at policy inception or renewal might be insufficient at date of loss. The costs in copper plumbing or lumber alone could create a problem. And also, will a sale price of a relatively new home be as much as the cost of construction in an inflationary cycle with home prices falling rapidly?

The answer is yes, no, or it depends. The question is about the same as how much does it cost to buy a car? I've seen some that are grossly inadequate and some that are way too much. If you are looking for a solid answer for the question, you won't get one that is accurate. Some, like myself, bump their personal property limits to cover the value of contents. What would be nice in the real world is if the agents explained to the policyholders all the coverages involved in the policy including the limits of contents, valuation, etc. Also having the policyholder sign off on having these explained to them would cover the agent in the event of a total loss and the policyholder claiming they didn't know they didn't have enough.

From an old agents perspective, a simple answer is no. As an agent I tried to make sure everyone was adequately covered, but the fact is most are underinsured. Probably including myself. Do I have enough coverage to replace every shirt, every spoon, every one of my spouses highly prized nick nacks ? NO. But I know that. Where the problem comes is when the insured does not know that. Most insureds are very specific when it comes to dwelling coverage, but the contents are relegated to a percentage of the dwelling coverage.

As for myself, if I should have a total loss, I would view it as a spring cleaning. I could finally haul off that old organ that is in my garage, the boxes of outgrown clothes that will be the subject of a future fictitious garage sale that never seems to happen. But I'm not bitter.......


JWG

I've never been one to have a lot of expensive stuff because I have moved around all my life, so the percentage of residential (or even the typical coverage limits on a renter's policy) exceed the value of all my stuff put together. Goes with the territory for a catadjuster whose spouse is along for the ride.