Moving Insurance 101: Is It Worth It for Your Next Move?
Choosing to use a moving company may not be the cheapest option, but it can alleviate a lot of stress, which can justify the price for many people moving. Of course, you'll still need to pack everything yourself and this route presents you with another set of things you may stress about, like what could potentially happen to your stuff when it's in transit to your new home or apartment.
When a moving company is moving your things to their destination, boxes can shift, items can break, and things could potentially get lost. Luckily, most companies offer some sort of reimbursement for these situations, but there's usually a cap on how much you can get back. If you're moving several expensive items or just want the peace of mind that your stuff is covered, you should look into moving insurance.
Applying for moving insurance will require you to take an inventory of your items and appraise them. With the total value of your belongings in mind, you'll be able to begin shopping for insurance plans. You may even have some sort of moving insurance if you also pay for homeowner's or renter's insurance, so it'd be wise to look at any existing plans you may have first.
For more moving tips, don't miss the best moving companies for 2025 and how to change your address on your phone after you move.
What is moving insurance?
When thinking about moving insurance, there are two things to consider -- the valuation that moving companies provide for damages and third-party moving insurance for additional coverage. Moving companies themselves are not technically allowed to sell actual insurance policies.
Interstate moving companies are required by federal law to provide both "released value protection" at no cost and "full value protection," usually for an additional fee. These are two methods for reimbursing customers for items damaged or lost.
Additional, third-party moving insurance can protect your belongings in case they are lost, damaged, stolen or destroyed by fire or other disasters. The compensation you receive for losses will depend on the type of moving insurance you choose -- you could get very little in the case of damages or have everything fully replaced and repaired.
Some moving companies work with insurance providers to offer policies, while others will require you to find insurance on your own.
What is the difference between released value coverage and full value coverage?
Most moving companies provide released value coverage at no additional cost. The Department of Transportation requires all movers to provide it and many states mandate it as well.
Released value coverage: With this type of coverage, movers will evaluate the value of your belongings' weight on a per item basis, offering $0.60 per pound. So you know that LG C5 OLED you paid over $1,000 for? If it breaks in transit, you'll receive a total of $21.30 for the 55-inch version since it weighs a little over 35 pounds. With that type of math, it's hard to even call this coverage.
Full value coverage: Considering how little you'd be reimbursed for your items with the released value coverage option, you'll want to consider full value protection. While it's not free (and may not be cheap), it's better than nothing. Full value protection requires the moving company to either replace, repair or offer a cash settlement for the lost or damaged item. "Under this option, movers are allowed to limit their legal responsibility to loss or damage to items of 'extraordinary value,' meaning items that are valued more than $100 per pound (such as jewelry, china, or furs)," per the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
While this protection doesn't cover any item that would be valued at over $100 per pound, the movers will still be responsible for transporting said items safely. These high-value items will need to be disclosed to the movers, regardless of their disqualification of coverage.
Remember that two types of coverages are required to be offered by moving companies for interstate moves only. If you're moving within your state, there may be specific regulations in place. The FMCSA suggests that you should, "Check with your state, county or local consumer affairs agency or state moving association if you're moving to a new location within the same state.
How is moving valuation coverage different from moving insurance?
Remember that moving companies' valuation coverage isn't insurance. It's a system for reimbursing you for lost or damaged items.
A moving insurance policy requires you to sign a contract in which you pay an agreed upon premium for a specific amount of financial coverage. Whereas valuation coverage only deals with damage caused by movers, moving insurance is generally broader and covers events like fire, theft and other losses.
Should I buy moving insurance?
If peace of mind means anything to you, then yes, it's probably worth paying extra for moving insurance. That doesn't mean it may make less sense for some people to go for it, though. If you don't have a lot of stuff or aren't moving very far, then it may be wise to get a quote from a company and see if it makes sense for you.
Most movers are required to provide valuation coverage for handling your belongings, but which type you choose (released value coverage or full value protection) dictates how much you're reimbursed in the event of damage or loss. If you're only accepting released value coverage, you may want to supplement with a separate insurance policy that protects all of your possessions from a wider range of calamities.
What else should I know before buying moving insurance or coverage?
Moving companies don't cover damages inside boxes you packed, unless the boxes are obviously damaged on the outside. "You may consider packing your own household goods articles to reduce your costs, but if the articles you pack are damaged, it may be more difficult to establish your claim against the mover for the boxes you pack," the Department of Transportation writes.
Packing perishable, dangerous or hazardous materials in your household goods without your mover's knowledge may limit your mover's liability. So will choosing released value coverage when your belongings are worth more than the standard 60 cents per pound evaluation.
What happens if my belongings get damaged during the move?
This is where an extensive inventory of your possessions will come in handy. While this may be something required for you to create for insurance policies, it's also important for you to have if one or more of your items are damaged during the move.
The simplest way to do this is to list all of your belongings along with their values and current conditions before they leave with the movers. If you have the time and are willing to put forth the effort, you can also take photos of your items. The idea is to be able to prove that your items were damaged by the movers and not prior.
If your belongings do get damaged or lost during a move, you'll need to report those lost or damaged articles by filing a claim with your mover within nine months of the delivery date.
For more moving tips, check out 7 must-have moving apps and tips for first-time movers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
16 minutes ago
- CBS News
Judge approves landmark NCAA settlement, clearing way for schools to pay athletes directly
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. In a letter penned by NCAA President Charlie Baker following the announcement, Baker wrote that the settlement "opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports. This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL [name, image and likeness] agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports." The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness, or NIL — a term that is now as common in college sports as "March Madness" or "Roll Tide." It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are.
Wall Street Journal
41 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Landmark House v. NCAA Settlement Approved by Judge, Allowing Colleges to Pay Athletes
A federal judge in California finally approved a $2.6 billion settlement for college athletes that upends a century-old tenet of college sports—the notion that schools cannot pay the athletes that play for them. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken on Friday ushered in a new era—a professional era—for college sports by signing off on a plan for the NCAA and the five most prominent sports conferences to settle a class-action lawsuit with current and former college players. The deal will give backpay to some, as well as creating a system in which each Division I school will be able to distribute roughly $20 million a year to their athletes. Schools are poised to begin implementing the new model this fall. The decision has been months in the making, drawn out in its final weeks by the judge's insistence that the NCAA find a way to stop current athletes from losing their roster spots. The settlement would 'enable NCAA schools to share their athletic revenues with Division I college student-athletes for the first time in the history of the NCAA,' Wilken wrote in her 76-page opinion. She added that it was 'expected to open the door for Division I student- athletes to receive, in the aggregate, approximately $1.6 billion dollars in new compensation and benefits per year, with that amount increasing over the next ten years.' Each school that elects to share revenue with athletes will start by distributing more than $20 million in the coming academic year. That amount will reach about $32.9 million per school by 2034-35, the end of the injunctive-relief settlement, Wilken wrote. The settlement brings the biggest changes yet to college sports, which until recently had banned athletes from earning much more than a scholarship, room and board. It comes on the heels of years of upheaval that have included loosened restrictions on off-the-field compensation for players, liberalized transfer rules and blockbuster television deals for schools and the chaotic conference realignment that followed. Yet during all of that time, many college sports leaders had still resisted paying athletes directly from the billions of dollars in revenue they helped generate. Now, that restraint is off. Schools have been readying for months for the settlement effects to land on their athletic departments, most immediately by transforming how they recruit and manage rosters in football and basketball. 'People have been doing a lot of work on a contingent basis to try to create the infrastructure that's envisioned by the settlement,' NCAA President Charlie Baker said ahead of the final approval. 'It'll definitely be rocky and kind of messy coming out of the gate, because big things are that way.' Private equity has already been circling college sports, pledging to inject capital into schools but also to advise them on how to grow their sports business. And athletic departments are openly wrestling over what the ruling means for the future of Olympic sports on campus. Most of these sports do not generate much revenue, but American campuses serve as the primary Olympic training ground for Team USA. The settlement largely immunizes the NCAA against similar claims, a provision the association considered essential as it seeks to move past decades of court battles over payments for players. But it will almost certainly not end litigation over the shape of college sports. It isn't clear whether the money needs to be distributed equitably in accordance with Title IX, the federal statute that requires publicly funded institutions to provide equal opportunities to male and female athletes. Aside from preparing for schools to distribute roughly $20 million a year to athletes, the settlement didn't specify how exactly much should be allocated to each sport. The majority will likely go to football, the financial engine of most athletic departments, as well as men's basketball. Female athletes have raised questions over the payouts they are set to receive and what fair compensation looks like for them going forward. 'This settlement doesn't come close to recognizing the value I lost,' LSU gymnast Livvy Dunne said in an unsuccessful attempt to object to the settlement. There's also the open question of whether athletes getting paid by their institutions are working for them—a distinction that could open up schools to more legal challenges. But even without employee status, the settlement will transform the relationship between players and schools. Write to Louise Radnofsky at Laine Higgins at and Rachel Bachman at
CNN
42 minutes ago
- CNN
Federal judge approves $2.8B settlement, paving way for US colleges to pay athletes millions
A federal judge signed off on arguably the biggest change in the history of college sports on Friday, clearing the way for schools to begin paying their athletes millions of dollars as soon as next month as the multibillion-dollar industry shreds the last vestiges of the amateur model that defined it for more than a century. Nearly five years after Arizona State swimmer Grant House sued the NCAA and its five biggest conferences to lift restrictions on revenue sharing, U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken approved the final proposal that had been hung up on roster limits, just one of many changes ahead amid concerns that thousands of walk-on athletes will lose their chance to play college sports. The sweeping terms of the so-called House settlement include approval for each school to share up to $20.5 million with athletes over the next year and $2.7 billion that will be paid over the next decade to thousands of former players who were barred from that revenue for years. The agreement brings a seismic shift to hundreds of schools that were forced to reckon with the reality that their players are the ones producing the billions in TV and other revenue, mostly through football and basketball, that keep this machine humming. The scope of the changes — some have already begun — is difficult to overstate. The professionalization of college athletics will be seen in the high-stakes and expensive recruitment of stars on their way to the NFL and NBA, and they will be felt by athletes whose schools have decided to pare their programs. The agreement will resonate in nearly every one of the NCAA's 1,100 member schools boasting nearly 500,000 athletes. Wilken's ruling comes 11 years after she dealt the first significant blow to the NCAA ideal of amateurism when she ruled in favor of former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others who were seeking a way to earn money from the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL) — a term that is now as common in college sports as 'March Madness' or 'Roll Tide.' It was just four years ago that the NCAA cleared the way for NIL money to start flowing, but the changes coming are even bigger. Wilken granted preliminary approval to the settlement last October. That sent colleges scurrying to determine not only how they were going to afford the payments, but how to regulate an industry that also allows players to cut deals with third parties so long as they are deemed compliant by a newly formed enforcement group that will be run by auditors at Deloitte. The agreement takes a big chunk of oversight away from the NCAA and puts it in the hands of the four biggest conferences. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and SEC hold most of the power and decision-making heft, especially when it comes to the College Football Playoff, which is the most significant financial driver in the industry and is not under the NCAA umbrella like the March Madness tournaments are. The list of winners and losers is long and, in some cases, hard to tease out. A rough guide of winners would include football and basketball stars at the biggest schools, which will devote much of their bankroll to signing and retaining them. For instance, Michigan quarterback Bryce Underwood's NIL deal is reportedly worth between $10.5 million and $12 million. Losers will be the walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes whose spots are gone. One of the adjustments made at Wilken's behest was to give those athletes a chance to return to the schools that cut them in anticipation of the deal going through. Also in limbo are Olympic sports many of those athletes play and that serve as the main pipeline for a U.S. team that has won the most medals at every Olympics since the downfall of the Soviet Union. All this is a price worth paying, according to the attorneys who crafted the settlement and argue they delivered exactly what they were asked for: an attempt to put more money in the pockets of the players whose sweat and toil keep people watching from the start of football season through March Madness and the College World Series in June. What the settlement does not solve is the threat of further litigation. Though this deal brings some uniformity to the rules, states still have separate laws regarding how NIL can be doled out, which could lead to legal challenges. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been consistent in pushing for federal legislation that would put college sports under one rulebook and, if he has his way, provide some form of antitrust protection to prevent the new model from being disrupted again.
