“I feel that I am paying too much for the theft cover portion of my household insurance, as the insurance company values all my contents even though it would be difficult to steal all of it. In most break-ins the robbers just take things that are easy to grab like a laptop and cellphone, and my TV is wall mounted. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to self-insure?” asks Jonathan

Maya replies: Brett Jacobs, Asset Protection Specialists at Glacier says that if you removed theft cover from your household insurance you could save up to 50% on your premiums, however that would leave you with a significant risk if your robbery was extensive and they had time to take other electronic equipment, jewellery and clothing. “I would always advise clients to rather take an additional excess than do away with theft cover entirely. The client must just understand that they will be their own insurer, so to speak , for the excess amount,” says Jacobs.

For example if you are prepared to self-insure for up to R15 000, then simply make that the excess payable on your insurance cover. This could result in a discount of up to 30% so you would be making a saving but also have protection against a major clean-out. Jacobs says having a good credit record and low claims history as well as a good security system can often have more of an impact on lowering your premiums than a higher excess option. The best advice is to contact your insurer and discuss ways for you to bring down your premiums.

If you do decide to opt for a higher excess on your cover, it is important to be disciplined. If you opted for a R15 000 excess then you must keep the R15 000 in an emergency fund and pay your monthly premium saving into an investment account – don’t just waste the saving. The problem is that few people have this discipline and end up having to use debt to replace the items when they are stolen, which ends up costing double the amount once you have paid off the interest on the loan. In that case it would probably work out cheaper to have a lower excess.