Wierd question: do you or would you insure your tennis collection?

Tennis Man

Hall of Fame
I know that some people insure their personal stuff and collections. I know people who houses were broken into and their stuff stolen and they had policies and vice versa (not a very pleasant thing). So, do you or would you insure your tennis collection? :confused:
 

retrowagen

Hall of Fame
Obviously, Pete Sampras wished he had.

If you have a larger collection, definitely document it with photos and detailled, itemized lists (with market values), and submit same to your home or renter's insurance carrier, so as to be covered should the unthinkable happen.
 

Tennis Man

Hall of Fame
Obviously, Pete Sampras wished he had.

If you have a larger collection, definitely document it with photos and detailled, itemized lists (with market values), and submit same to your home or renter's insurance carrier, so as to be covered should the unthinkable happen.
Great idea. It's all documented on this site already. :)

I actually wouldn't care much about the racquets alone but I recently started my Canon DSLR and lens "collection" and it's much more expensive though nothing compared to Sampras. I can't believe he didn't insure it. Is this confirmed?
 

PBODY99

Legend
You may need a rider for any collection that has a value over your companies limits on general items.
 

Virginia

Hall of Fame
Up until recently, mine was insured for NZ$25,000.

Since becoming husband-less and fancy free, I haven't got around to insuring anything.

Had a light bulb fall out of the ceiling rose the other day (glowing bright red as it fell), so I think I'd better think seriously about re-insuring them.
 

tennisdad65

Hall of Fame
Unless you are a tennis pro or legend (or the poster above!), I doubt it is worth it. btw.. My tennis collection consists of 4 copper aces got from the bay for a total of ~$50 :)
 

Fearsome Forehand

Professional
Up until recently, mine was insured for NZ$25,000.

Since becoming husband-less and fancy free, I haven't got around to insuring anything.

Had a light bulb fall out of the ceiling rose the other day (glowing bright red as it fell), so I think I'd better think seriously about re-insuring them.
Isn't $25K NZ about $50 US? :) Actually, it is around 20K US which means you must have A LOT of rackets.

I have several grand tied up in tennis rackets. I think about $7.5K worth given normal auction prices. Too much. Will do the big sell off this summer. I only need so many rackets and I am way past what I consider to be a sane level of rackets. Although, I know there are people on this board who are much more insane than me. :)

Insurers sets limits on liability for personal possessions as well as specific limits for high theft items like jewelry and computers.

Believe it or not, most burglars don't play tennis so it is unlikely they would steal your rackets. Maybe if tennislicous broke into your house, you might have a problem. :) Fire is indifferent though and most rackets wouldn't survive a bad fire but would not be damaged by mere smoke. In fact, a smokey racket might be kind of cool.

All in all, unless you have the World Tennis Museum in your basement, it is probably not worth worrying about.
 
Last edited:

coachrick

Hall of Fame
Nothing extra for the 120 or so rackets. Here in Texas, homeowners' insurance includes covering a 'contents' value as a percentage of the value of the dwelling. Even with quite a few antiques in the house, my modest racket collection would be covered by that.
 

Tennis Man

Hall of Fame
Nothing extra for the 120 or so rackets. Here in Texas, homeowners' insurance includes covering a 'contents' value as a percentage of the value of the dwelling. Even with quite a few antiques in the house, my modest racket collection would be covered by that.
Coach, I didn't know that. What is the %-age?
 

coachrick

Hall of Fame
Nothing extra for the 120 or so rackets. Here in Texas, homeowners' insurance includes covering a 'contents' value as a percentage of the value of the dwelling. Even with quite a few antiques in the house, my modest racket collection would be covered by that.
Coach, I didn't know that. What is the %-age?
TM, if I'm not mistaken, it's in the range of 70% of the 'dwelling' coverage. I know on our aunt's home, I questioned the amount of coverage and basically was told that the 'base' personal property coverage was a function of the coverage value of the structure. It has followed each year our 'dwelling' value changed that the 'personal property' coverage remained right at 70%. Matters not that our aunt could have replaced EVERYthing in her house for 15-20% of the coverage value assigned to 'personal property'. I believe if you get an estimate from your insurance company, it will show this percentage coverage(for personal property) as a minimum. If you take a look at your policy, it will list dwelling coverage, loss of use, etc on the same line as 'personal property'. I reckon the insurance folks and the legislature wanted 'excess' coverage, rather than too little.
 
Top