In which case do insurances make sense?

Careful there. Insurance is the best thing in Switzerland. Our storage-neighbour has accidentally burned down his and two-two storage compartments left and right.

Each unit had about 20k CHF worth of damages (cleaning fee 3-4k, repair costs goes to the owners, replacement cost of everything we had there at new prices). ~300 CHF a year pays this back, it’s enough to have such an accident every 50 years once to have the insurance pay for itself.

1 Like

But statistically, “you” won’t have such an accident every 50 years or the insurance would go bankrupt, paying out more money than they get in.

I think insurance makes sense and should absolutely be taken when the purpose is to cover for costs we wouldn’t be able to pay for should we have to. I would take “homestuff” insurance if I wasn’t able to replace my stuff out of my own pocket.

I would not make it a financial calculation with the hope of getting more coverage out of it than I pay into the insurance, though.


In the storage case, wouldn’t the household contents insurance have payed for the stuff of the person (20k) and the liability insurance for the neighbour’s things (40k)?

1 Like

SInce nearly all my stuff is second hand, and that out of conviction I want to keep as least stuff as minimum, I am fine with not having it.

The most valuable would be the emotional value, but this is not insurable.

(I am actually baffled that people need a storage unit - I am already kind of sick of all the stuff in the cellar we use maybe once or twice a year… except if you mean cellar by storage unit).


“you” don’t, but I did :slight_smile: :frowning:

My e-bike got stolen, the e-bike of my wife was damaged, then the fire incident, all in 1 year - in total, we got about 25k back, what otherwise would’ve been approximately at least 12-15k to replace/repair. However, I’m not doing this for the 10k plus and ofc YMMV.

I know it’s a poisson distribution for risk, but basically you never know. You might be giving away 5-10k for insurance in the next 20 years that you might never use, apart from having a good sleep.


We are probably a bit off-topic. However, I would have oppined that Insurance was very important provided:

  • There was a very Low Probability but still a High Impact of the Risk
  • It was a Risk that was common to insure and a broad market of different players
  • There is no moral hazard / one-sided market risk (buyer can’t drive case / severity up)
  • The risk was insurable in a sense that there was either:
    • accross the market, there was a constant and fairly predictable “stream” of cases (car accidents, deaths, …), OR
    • we talk about an insured peril with long track record, standardization and history of re-insurance coverage (whether transferred to the capital market aka CAT bonds or not)

In such situations, Insurance makes economic sense. Yes, you pay the cost of risk plus a premium but there is a market in place that ensures you don’t pay excessive fees. Essentially, you pay a premium for the benefit of participating a risk-pool that covers you in case of catastrophic losses. For anything else, I don’t think that Insurance was adequate.

What does this mean in practice? Take out liability, accident, high deductible health, risk-only life/disability insurance, longevity insurance (AHV/Pension/Annuity; unfortunately there is no real "excess insurance* here). Plus potentially (if available) excess long-term care insurance (aka with deductible and waiting time).
Further insure your real estate (Fire, Lightning, Earthquake, Explosions, Aviation, Wind, Landslide & Floods) and be careful with property insurance that goes beyond traditional “household property”.


Hmmm. My car insurance is up for renewal at the end of the year, the “offer” they gave me was 350CHF more expensive, on account of them having added a “damage to my vehicle when it’s parked and I am not there” - the ol’ “grandpa reverses into your car in the supermarket parking lot and breaks a headlight, which would cost 1000CHF to replace” scenario.

I challenged the addition and they said that if I don’t have it I’d lose my no claims bonus…I insisted on asking why that would be and they said “you can cover supermarket parking lot damage through collision insurance, which you have, but then you’ll have made a claim”, I showed them that the contract has 1 claim/year without impacting the no claims bonus, then they said “but if you have TWO such accidents in a year then you’ll lose it”…

I am aware I am probably paying a lot for insurance in this country, but this is just ridiculous. I said the process going from “you WILL lose your no claims bonus” to “you will lose your no claims bonus if you have TWO claims in a year” is a joke, so they offered a 5% discount :stuck_out_tongue: Once the fish is about to spit the hook out they sweeten it a bit eh?


In this specific case, I think a dashcam would help more than the insurance… Much cheaper and multi-use, also in other situations.

And anyway, a low velocity impact on a parking lot is about what, 2000 CHF of damage at the most ? How often is old grandpa driving into your car on a supermarket ?

To be honest it’s never happened to me, probably luck involved, but also I drive/park obsessively carefully… Been driving for 25 years without even ever getting a scratch in any car I’ve driven, touch wood.

However last year my back brake light died and it cost 440CHF to replace as it’s LED, no insurance/warranty covering it either. A front light and some fender/bumper damage can be caused in 5km/h and cost a non-insignificant amount of money (2k, as you say, sound very conceivable).

1 Like


What insurance is this? I’m interested in the stock.



dashcams are illegal in CH

BMW laserlights are 3k a pop, the light itself. Per side.


That said, a non-lawyer co-worker of mine uses one and had a … um, let’s say a dashcam wise pretty clear incident (from the point of view of who might be at fault), the police was apparently involved immediately, and after everyone reviewed the dashcam video review, the police allegedly suggested that the video evidence was pretty … er, evident.
The (apparent) violator of the law accepted that they were “guilty”, the issue never proceeded to any further follow-up (despite the “evidence” video being illegal in the first place).

I personally keep thinking about getting a dashcam, but only occasionally (like triggered by threads like this one). More generally, I think that most dashcam cameras serve their main purpose of producing TikTok crash videos.


I suggest to request quotes from other companies too. 3500 CHF insurance for full CASCO seems quite high.

Of course depends on car too.

The total of the insurance is 1200CHF, they wanted to add 350 on top, not 3500 total!

Ahh sorry
Not sure why I read 3500 CHF :slight_smile:

In this case, I am pretty sure you can fiend the culprit even without dash cam.

It is not that black and white as far as I know
Rechtsweg · lex4you

It can be used in a civil legal procedure, if the interest of finding truth is higher than the personal rights of the shown person.