At what point does it become worth it to file an insurance claim?
An article linked from cnn.com has some great advice, which I think are good rules of thumb. Also, at least my insurance gives a premium price for those who haven't filed a claim in 5 or more years for homeowners or rental insurance. See if you have a similar discount, will loose it, and guess how much that will cost you over 5 years. My rule of thumb: Your premium might go up quite a bit, possibly as much as triple, especially for a large claim. But, it is certainly worth it if you are going to get more than triple your premium through your claim. The worst case: Mortgage mandated insurance, which will be about triple your current cost. At what point can you not afford the repair, and how will that repair affect your home? In your scenario, you would be claiming $1, which I could agree is universally bad. A good tip is to raise the deductible to the point you feel you can cover on your own so you aren't tempted.  (It would lower your premium too) This is what an emergency fund is for.  In your examples, if you have $10K in an emergency fund, don't file a claim.  If you have no emergency fund, and your roof is missing, I would suggest filing a claim. If you have no money, but the claim is to fix something that you could ignore (missing a back porch?  Lock the back door and don't go out of it) then save the $10K and pay for it out of pocket. When it doubt, pay for it out of pocket if possible. "We learned the hard way on this one.  First, our area was hit with what was called an ""inland hurricane"" where we forced to file a claim as our home received extensive damage.   Within the same year, we also incurred an electrical surge which took out our older big screen tv (one of those big monstrosities that sits on the floor).  We were granted full replacement with a more modern flat screen TV, TV stand, and DVD player.  It seemed like a no brainer. We quickly found it as our premium went up that it wasn't that sweet.  It wasn't a huge increase, but it definitely has us truly evaluate if it's really necessary filing a claim."
You can't ask insurers to use a particular score -- they have a state-approved underwriting model that they must follow consistently. Insurance companies make money by not paying claims, and poor credit score (including limit access to credit) increases the probability that you will file a small claim. Why? If you get into a minor accident (say $750 of damage) and have a $500 deductible, you are much less likely to file a claim to get $250 if you have access to a cash or credit lines to make the repairs yourself.  If you feel that you are going to be penalized for closing credit card accounts, the solution is simple -- don't close them. Other than an event where you need to sever a relationship with a co-owner of an account (ie, you break up with your significant other, dissolve a business, etc) or avoid paying an annual fee, there is no advantage to you closing a revolving credit account, ever. If you cannot control your spending, throw the card in the shredder. Eventually, the credit card company will close your account for inactivity, which affects your credit to a lesser degree. (The big exception is if you carry sufficient balances on other cards, your credit utilization ratio goes up materially.) There is no benefit in life insurance as such (ie, death insurance.) There is a great deal of value in other types though: total and permanent disability insurance, trauma insurance (a lump sum for a major medical event), and income protection insurance (cover against a temporary but disabling medical condition).  If you don't have that, you should get it right now. This is about the most important insurance you can carry.  Being unable to work for the rest of your life has a far larger impact than having, say, your car stolen. ...  If, later on, you acquire dependents, and you feel you ought to have life insurance, then you will have a relationship with a life insurance company, and maybe they will let you upgrade from income/TPD to income/TPD/life without too much fuss or requalification.  Some do; whether yours would I don't know.  But at least you have a toe in the door with them, in a way that is infinitely more immediately useful than getting life insurance that you don't actually need. "The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, ""how likely am I to need it?"", and ""what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?"". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being ""what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim""), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the ""normal"" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign ""ownership contracts"", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two ""buckets"" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what ""normal"" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of ""lose a little every month"" or ""lose it all at once""." Since insurance is priced for profit, the price will be more than the price of a new phone multiplied against the chance of loss and payout.  Otherwise insurance would not be offered since there was no money to be made by the insurance company. The idea of insurance is that you are pooling your risk with everyone else.  You all definitely pay a little (insurance premium) instead of any of you maybe paying a lot (when a phone is destroyed).  The question is not whether it is a good investment (almost surely no), but whether the loss at a random time would be too crippling to be absorbed by you when it happened.  If you can afford a new phone without financial difficulty if it were destroyed then you should generally not buy insurance. One other factor could be that although you are in the same risk pool as everyone else (everyone pays the same rate), but your situation has a higher risk than most, insurance can be a better deal, though the better investment over time would be to correct the risky situation instead of buying insurance.  This could be that you have a habit of losing things, live in an area where phones are stolen often, have pets that destroy your belongings, etc. Statistically, you will come out ahead not buying insurance, but you are accepting an unknown outcome. Pay it off. If you do so, you have the liberty to drop or reduce a portion of your collision auto insurance coverage (keeping uninsured motorist). This could potentially save you a lot more than 20 bucks over the next six months. As a recent college grad who switched to his own car insurance, many of the things I did myself are reflected here. The #1 thing I did was find out what coverages I had, what coverages some friends of mine had (car enthusiasts mostly - they're the most informed on this stuff), and then figured out what kind of coverages I wanted. From there, I went around getting quotes from anyone and everyone and eventually built out a sizeable spreadsheet that made it obvious which company was going to offer me the best rate at a given coverage level. Something else to remember - not all insurance companies look at past accidents and violations (speeding, etc) the same. In my search, I found some have a 3-year scope on accidents and violations, while others were as much as 5 years. So, if your driving record isn't a shining example (mine isn't perfect), you could potentially save money by considering insurance through a company that will see fewer violations/incidents than another because of the size of their scope. I ended up saving $25/mo by choosing a company that had a 3-year scope, which was on the cusp of when my last violation/incident occurred. Insurance companies will also give out discounts for younger drivers based on GPA average. If you have kids and they maintain a high GPA, you might be able to get a discount there. Not all companies offer it, so if they do it's worth finding out how much it is "There's not a single answer here, as the premium you pay for car insurance depends on multiple factors, including (but not limited to): All these factors contribute to the likelihood of getting into an accident, and the expected damage from an accident.  So just having an accident and making a claim will likely raise your premium (all else being equal), but whether or not it will be cheaper in the long run depends (obviously) on how much your premium goes up, which cannot determined without all of the facts.  Your agent could tell you how much it would go up, but even making such an inquiry would likely be noted on your insurance record, and may cause your premium to go up (although probably not by as much). However, the point of insurance is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses from future accidents, so the question to ask is: How likely am I to have another accident, and if I do, can I pay cash for it or will I need to offset some cost with an insurance claim.  Do you risk making a claim and having your rates go up by more than $700 over the next 3-4 years (the rough time it takes for a ""surcharge"" to expire)?  Or do you just pay for the repair out-of-pocket and keep your premiums lower?" "I'm going to take a very crude view of this: Suppose that you have an event that would cost $100,000 if it occurred. If there's a 10% chance that it'll happen to you and the insurance costs less than $10,000, you'll make a profit ""on average."" This is, of course, assuming that you could afford a $100,000 loss. If you can't, the actual loss could be much higher (or different). For example, if you couldn't afford surgery because you didn't have health insurance, it could be a lot more ""costly"" in a way that could be difficult to compare to the $100,000. Obviously, this is a very simplistic view of things. For example, making more than you paid on the premium typically isn't the only reason you'd buy insurance (even if you're high net worth). Just wanted to throw this out there for what it's worth though." "This is a generic answer to this question, since I believe the UK requirements mean you have no choice in this particular situation. Ask yourself this question: If the boat sank, would you buy another boat? If the answer to that is ""yes"" then insurance is often worthwhile." Actually, most insurance policies DON'T have a cash value if you don't make a claim.  The reason that some life insurance policies do this is that they are really tax sheltered investments posing as insurance.  With that in mind, the root of your question is really whether insurance premiums are wasted if you never make a claim. It really makes no difference if you are talking about EI, Auto, or Homeowner's insurance. My answer to that is no. What you are paying for when you buy insurance is financial risk avoidance. Look at it this way, you don't buy EI as an investment where you hope to get a return on your investment. You are buying the right to be protected against catastrophic financial difficulty associated with losing your job. Whether you claim it or not you did receive that protection. This is what drives me so crazy when I hear people talk about how an insurance company is ripping you off because you paid more in premiums than they paid out in benefits. Of course you did! If most people didn't pay in more than the company paid out there would be no financial interest for someone to form an insurance company. Generically, like farnsy noted in the other answer, you will only come ahead in dollar terms when you are significantly riskier than the average insuree. Otherwise the insurance company would have higher rates to make a profit. In the case of Apple Care there can arguably be other factors involved. If you did not insure your $2000 laptop and it broke (unfixably) just after the warranty period, would you replace it with a new Apple product? Maybe not, so Apple could lose a customer. That means they have an incentive to keep you happy. If your product breaks but insurance replaces it, you are a happier customer and more likely to buy other Apple products. This is not an incentive for traditional insurance companies that only do business in insurance. Now, with the profit margins Apple likes in general, I don't know if they've underpriced their insurance. I sort of doubt it even. But their margins on it are probably not high, meaning it's a closer call even if you are only averagely risky. "In general, if you can afford to replace something, you are able to ""self-insure"".  You really want to understand a little of the statistics before you can make a generic call, but my rule of thumb is that insurance via ""extended warranty"" is rarely a good deal.  Here is a simple expected value math formula you can apply (when the > is true, then you should buy it): replacement cost x likelihood of using warranty % > cost of insurance You can then back-compute, what is the likelihood that I'd need to lose this item to break even?  Given your numbers: $2000 x Y > $350 or Y > (350/2000) or Y > 17.5% So if you think there is a 17.5% or greater chance that you'll need to have you system replaced (i.e. not just a simple fix) AND (as Scott pointed out) you'll be able to actually use the replacement warranty then the applecare is a good purchase.  Note, this only applies to items you can replace out-of-pocket without significant burden, because if you didn't have the $10k to replace your car, it wouldn't matter if the insurance wasn't such a good deal (especially if you need the car to get to work, etc.) So the obvious question is: ""Why would a for-profit company ever offer insurance on something they are statistically likely to lose money on?""  The obvious answer is ""they wouldn't,"" but that doesn't mean you should never buy this type of insurance, because you may have statistically significant circumstances. For instance, I purchased a $40 remote helicopter as a gift for my children.  I also paid the $5 for a ""no questions asked"" warranty on it because, knowing my kids, I knew there was a nearly 100% chance they would break it at least once.  In this case, this warranty was well worth the $5, because they did break it!  Presumably they make money on these warranties because most of the purchasers of the plan are more attentive (or too lazy to make the claim) than in this case. Edit note: I incorporated Scott's comment about likelihood of being able to utilize the warranty into a combined ""likelihood of using warranty"" term.  This term could be broken up into likelihood of needing replacement x likelihood of actually getting company to replace it I didn't do this above because it makes it a little harder to understand, and may not be a major factor in all cases, but you can definitely add it after the fact (i.e. if there's only a 90% chance Applecare will pay out at all, then divide the 17.5% by 0.9 to get 19.4% likelihood of needing the replacement for it to be cost effective). More complete formulas can be derived also (including terms for full replacement costs vs repair costs and including terms for ""deductible"" type costs or shipping), but I'm trying to keep things relatively simple for those who aren't statistics nerds like I am." Once you accept payment for an insurance claim, the insurance company has discharged its obligation to you.  You could burn the money in a barrel and they would not care.  There is no expectation or requirement that you repair or restore the insured item.  You can do whatever you wish with the money. "In addition to the good answers already provided, I want to point out that many (most?) providers will handle filing your health insurance claim for you even though it's really your responsibility. So here's how medical bills ""you don't have to pay"" might come about: * It's possible that your balance is $4, or $20, or $65, or even still $100 depending on your particular insurance plan. Whatever is left at this step is what you pay." You don't have to make the repairs, if they're just cosmetic. The insurance company doesn't care if your house looks good or not. On the other hand, if the repairs are structurally necessary to prevent water damage to the house, not making them may result in the company raising your rate or not renewing the policy due to the increased risk. You can try asking your agent if you can get a ruling on that now, before deciding whether to spend the money. And of course if you don't do it, they may not count this damage toward your deductible for future damage this year.