Asurion cell phone insurance review!

I have a LG Voyager with VZW and was going to file a insurance claim. However I want to know in advance what phone Asurion will replace my current one with. Anyone know if I will be given another Voyager? Cause preferably I would not want that phone again?> any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

---

› See More: Asurion cell phone insurance review!

They'll replace it with another Voyager.

If for some wacky reason the Voyager isn't in stock, they'll replace it with a phone of lesser value which was released at least 4 months prior to the date of claim.

Basically, if you're trying to use Asurion as an upgrade source, you cannot. They have every type of policy in act to prevent customers from doing this. They are:

• Replacing phone with same phone (unless not available)
• if same phone unavailable, replacing phone with a phone of THEIR choice valued at equal or less than your current device AND the phone has had to be out for 4 months.

Originally Posted by jared2181

I have a LG Voyager with VZW and was going to file a insurance claim. However I want to know in advance what phone Asurion will replace my current one with. Anyone know if I will be given another Voyager? Cause preferably I would not want that phone again?> any insight would be appreciated. Thanks.

I have been paying the $5.95 insurance for my cell phone. I left it out in a rain drizzle for about 5 mins and the phone will not charge. Called Asurion to replace it and they told me it would cost $130.00. I went on T-mobile's web site and they will give me a brand new phone for $129.00 with a two year extention to my contract. Looks like I just through away $70.00 dollars for having the insurance. Asurion was only going to give me a refurbished phone, Never will buy again. What a rip off.

thanks good review

You won't get the phone for $129.99 if you're a current T-Mo customer.

Originally Posted by Emmie Girl

I have been paying the $5.95 insurance for my cell phone. I left it out in a rain drizzle for about 5 mins and the phone will not charge. Called Asurion to replace it and they told me it would cost $130.00. I went on T-mobile's web site and they will give me a brand new phone for $129.00 with a two year extention to my contract. Looks like I just through away $70.00 dollars for having the insurance. Asurion was only going to give me a refurbished phone, Never will buy again. What a rip off.

Nice review. What also worries me is that the claim charge is $50 - $100. How do you know how much it'll be?

all i have to say is all you people complaining and you need to read the terms and conditions maybe you will learn that they can take your money and send you a phone that its not comperable to your yep read before anything i have the insurance only because i have metro pcs and there phone are crazy expensive and they dont offer rebates at all and lay the customer service you every think maybe that sound the way they sound because people like you think your always right never are and honestly when you start getting mad they just ignore you and

Originally Posted by nicknrm

Red between the quote, I responded in blue there.

actually if your very nice they will do it

Originally Posted by angry

Asurion cell phone insurance is a rip off....Dont get it.....I have Verizon and was offered Asurion insurance on my cell phone in case my phone broke, or was stolen, etc. Anyway I think the service is a total rip off....Dont get it and I will tell you why.....

1) Cost of Asurion insurance.....$5.00 a month.

2) If you make a claim they make you pay $50.00

3) Once you do a claim and you get a new phone you must send back your old phone (with the battery) within 15 days or they can charge you up to $300.00.

4) The customer service sucks.

Now let me explain this better for you.....lets say your cell phone craps out 14 months into your plan...14 months x $5.00 a month equals...$70.00. Now $70.00 plus the $50.00 fee they charge you equals $120.00. Thats almost as much as a new phone already. But wait.....

Dont forget you gotta send your old broken phone back in with the battery...It does not take a moron to realized that they referbish the old phones and put new cheap plastic housings on the phones and resell em. Probably the batteries too. How much do ya think the old cell phone is worth to the refurbish company....? $15, $25?, $40? While they resell it for probably at least $90 to $175. Which you originally paid $150.00 for.

Oh and dont forget to send in that old phone, if you dont, thats an extra $300.00

And lastly, the customer service sucks.....Oh the reps you talk to are very nice dont get me wrong, but I was disconnected once, put on hold several times....Told the wrong information.....(Guy told me that the $50.00 went towards extra months on your Asurion insurance plan, next person I talked to said that was not true and it was just a service fee)

So all and all you end up paying about $150.00 for your new phone, while they turn around fix the old one and resell your phone as a new or refurbished one (I am only guessing about this but is probably the case).....If your phone does not break for longer....You end up paying even more. Worst case senario you forget to send in your broken phone and could end up paying like $450.00.

The only good things about this service is that you pay no shipping costs, Or did I? and I got a new phone by the next day.

I thought insurance was suppost to help your wallet, not not burn a hole in it. Its an Assurance, that youll be getting scammed with Asurion insurance.

I could not agree more with you, except #3, I have had terrible used and refurbished Cellphones as replacemebts sent to me, the past 4-years. I have never had a new cellphone sent to me from Asurion.
I do not pay for the insurance plan and I did not signed The Asurion Insurance contract, so you can understand how pissed-off I am. Now, some MultiMillionare Insurance Company protectors may post that I should have handled my cellphones better and I cannot completely argue with that. However, the insurance does not have a condition that I must bubble wrap my cellphone or it will be replaced with a used and refurbished cellphone.
I could care less if the replacements were of the current year, the whole problem is someone used them and replaced them for some reason, 99% of the time it is because they were not working right. Sure, I know of one person (rich person, who could afford to buy a new one every year, that simply lies and says he lost his cellphone and gets the latest cellphone, every year. Obviously, he does not have Asurion Insurance Contract; because I have raised HELL to management of Asurion over receiving USED and REFURBISHED cellphones four-times now, and been out of luck. I can understand the lost factor when people, pull those illegal scams; however, the federal government already pays the insurance companies for every USED Cellphone returned to them (by the way every cellphone not sold by the cellphone companies is paid for by insurnace companies), so they are profiting off of USED cellphones three-times, went they are repackaged and sent back to customers.

How about the fact that they will not replace memory cards, of the cellphones? That pisses me off, as well; why the heck not! Other than to get more money.

Another thing, not mention in this thread and using myself as an example, I am a environmentalist and on low income/unemployed and creating my own company; thus, my very first-cellphone lasted my many years (I tried to with the others), yet since Asurion Insurance Contract Condition, I can only receive one-USED and REFURBISHED model up from my current NEW cellphone model. Thus, every time I am sent a USED and REBURSHED cellphone one of it's features never works, to me being able to password lock and mute my cellphone is important. I do not want to contribute to the computer waste and poorest people suffering health consequences from processing the computer waste.

Are you sure we're on the same page?

Asurion is the company who deals with general cell phones from many wireless providers...

WHILE...

Assurant (Known as Assurant Solutions) is the insurance company who has taken over Circuit City's customers who had purchased protection plans before they closed.

Originally Posted by GreatWhitesSAs

Assurant.

This company does not care about you or your issues. They told me to send my phone into them whole. They did not mention that I would need to remove the memory stick as this is considered an accessory and they would not replace this or even send me the completely functional one that I sent in. They wanted the entire phone to verify the malfunction and when I sent in the entire phone they would not send me a phone equivalent to the one I sent in. The phone was fixed but missing the 2 gig memory stick. I would not recommend this company to anyone.

On top of all this, Verizon, and other companies, want to get the gov. to allow them to increase their early termination fees, they claim it is to address customers that want upgrade their cellphones, imply that all those customers that want to upgrades to better phones and only have one or two-versions away from the latest-upgraded phones or even just latest phones. That is BLANK!! The early termination fees is prevent us from getting better deals and phones! For which we have already mentioned is kept away from us, unless we pay a keep from becoming out of date cellphone or crapping out cellphone fee to the companies they only allow to insure their phones (wonder, if they are working together to even greater degree, like I*) Go to yahoo and check their Tech blog about this.

*- Current transparent cooperation is illegal, just government lets it happen. Think The NFL and MLB, allowed to walk all over current weak antitrust laws (compared to pre-1980s Antitrust Laws).

I highly doubt Verizon or T-Mobile (which wasn't mentioned) would EVER ask the government to allow them to increase the Early Termination Fees.

Verizon Wireless was the first provider to prorate the ETF, meaning you only paid a fair amount to terminate. The ETF amount starts at $175 and is reduced by $5 each month you maintain service. T-Mobile was the second provider to start something similar and then Sprint and AT&T were both court ordered to start this.

The Early Termination Fees have nothing to do with allowing you to get a better phone or deal. You agreed to Verizon (or whoever the carrier may be) to their Terms of Service and that you will maintain either a one or two year agreement and keep service for that duration. Verizon Wireless allows you to upgrade at the one year mark to a new phone at the 2-year pricing without paying an early termination fee if you're a myVerizon online member and on a select calling plan (most, if not all are in this select group). AT&T also lets you upgrade without a lot of penalties at one year.

Think of it this way, if you agree to a particular deal when buying a house and you back out, you may lose your escrow money! Same idea.

Originally Posted by GreatWhitesSAs

On top of all this, Verizon, and other companies, want to get the gov. to allow them to increase their early termination fees, they claim it is to address customers that want upgrade their cellphones, imply that all those customers that want to upgrades to better phones and only have one or two-versions away from the latest-upgraded phones or even just latest phones. That is BLANK!! The early termination fees is prevent us from getting better deals and phones! For which we have already mentioned is kept away from us, unless we pay a keep from becoming out of date cellphone or crapping out cellphone fee to the companies they only allow to insure their phones (wonder, if they are working together to even greater degree, like I*) Go to yahoo and check their Tech blog about this.

*- Current transparent cooperation is illegal, just government lets it happen. Think The NFL and MLB, allowed to walk all over current weak antitrust laws (compared to pre-1980s Antitrust Laws).

Originally Posted by nicknrm

I highly doubt Verizon or T-Mobile (which wasn't mentioned) would EVER ask the government to allow them to increase the Early Termination Fees.

Verizon Wireless was the first provider to prorate the ETF, meaning you only paid a fair amount to terminate. The ETF amount starts at $175 and is reduced by $5 each month you maintain service. T-Mobile was the second provider to start something similar and then Sprint and AT&T were both court ordered to start this.

The Early Termination Fees have nothing to do with allowing you to get a better phone or deal. You agreed to Verizon (or whoever the carrier may be) to their Terms of Service and that you will maintain either a one or two year agreement and keep service for that duration. Verizon Wireless allows you to upgrade at the one year mark to a new phone at the 2-year pricing without paying an early termination fee if you're a myVerizon online member and on a select calling plan (most, if not all are in this select group). AT&T also lets you upgrade without a lot of penalties at one year.

Think of it this way, if you agree to a particular deal when buying a house and you back out, you may lose your escrow money! Same idea.

Comparing The Early Termination Fees (of cellphone companies) and mortages is a bad comparision. Unless, you talking about how USA Gov. has done mortages and financial management for the past 31+-years, the most recent banking and financial criss, recession and how are Gov. officials have dealt with the banking and financial criss; then it is every good comparision. Before the late 70s we would not be full-board for bailing-out the banks and financial companies that caused the crises by creating expensive departments just to figure-out ways to fool the people in need for mortages and loans on their homes. Let alone derivitives (sp?) which is fruadant process to be providing other industries with protection on their bad mortages and loans. Plus, we did not have coorporate media that spent the first-two-years blaming the people that were fooled into taking the mortages, because god for bid the need a place to live and all their politicians tell them that this is the good times and buying a house instead of apartment was a must. Heck those companies even ignored their own departments that told them they making dangerous mortages and loans, that would eventually take down their companies.

All that being said does even matter or even address my point.
Simple, thing is The Early Termination Fee (concept) in itself is a legal (my understanding), but only one of many horrible business practices (many of the other are valitations of Antitrust Laws). But I ask if you do not want to trap your customers into staying in contractual requirements that bleed your customers out of money, one minimum sized charge at a time (on top of the other charges that build up to super large charges), then why do you even need The Early Termination Fee, let alone ask for increasing them (as the blog points-out, when one reads it)? The companies always say they must protect themselves from people just leaving their debts, on the companies to pay*. When the real problem is that they want to sell something to customers cannot afford to have it, And why does all those people think they have to have it, simple the companies have Gov. and commericalization to use in making every person avoid feeling out of touch. Here is a solution, straight from our grandparents and great grandparents generations (oh, I guess the younger generations' generational fight just tuned themselves out), strenghten The USA Gov. regulations, of cellphone industry, require the customers to have to pay a UP-FRONT and high price that NOTHING to do with making HUGE and SHORT TERM profits and making sure the customers will be able pay for what they are receiving and they will be able to pay for what they will receive in the near future. End of problem, except it does not get you and the industry the huge and short term profits that your industry lives off of, until your industries' monopolizing and antitrust practices, paying politicians to prevent true regulations and monopolies become so toxic to your own companies that one-set of incidents cause your industry to need bailing-out. Bailed-out by other industries that need youir industry to survive? I am crasy, no bailed-out through our tax-payer money.

This is another problem with comparing home mortages to cellphone pays/renting, Home are necessary and cellphones are not and never will be. No matter how many times our personal conversations and businesses tell us they are.

*- Our Federal Gov. in most cases bails out these debts.
Along with the locking people into one-insurance company for their cellphones replacements, only allowed to get another crapy cellphone that is only-one model up (only once you claim for a replacement), thus unless you are wasting additional money or trying to cheat the insurance and cellphone company you are going to receive a outdate cellphone and etc.
Your and other's arguement that well the customers signed the contract is an arguement that only works in The USA and other countries that have let Big Business take over. If our government actually regulated industries, such as Telecommunications and other industries cellphones apply in, with a biased for the big business or had the departments to actually regulate (like The European countries), then the selection that the customers have, most contracts and Antitrust Laws would be drastically changed. We have grown-up (37-years old) with industries that all the companies come together and decide what to do as group pushing the profits ever so high/actually what Antitrust Laws where created in the first place for. When monopolizing practices are allowed it kills smaller business ability to compete, thus creates monopolies. Same thing was happening before Former President FDR forced them to either change or broke-up the companies within the industries.

For other agreements that people break, in some cases you land in jail!

You're missing the concept. It is an AGREEMENT.

Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile (now that I think of it may have something similar) have a Month-To-Month type thing where you still need to pass a credit check but there are NO CONTRACTS involved and it DOES NOT have an early termination fee and it is NOT pay as you go.

Originally Posted by GreatWhitesSAs

Comparing The Early Termination Fees (of cellphone companies) and mortages is a bad comparision. Unless, you talking about how USA Gov. has done mortages and financial management for the past 31+-years, the most recent banking and financial criss, recession and how are Gov. officials have dealt with the banking and financial criss; then it is every good comparision. Before the late 70s we would not be full-board for bailing-out the banks and financial companies that caused the crises by creating expensive departments just to figure-out ways to fool the people in need for mortages and loans on their homes. Let alone derivitives (sp?) which is fruadant process to be providing other industries with protection on their bad mortages and loans. Plus, we did not have coorporate media that spent the first-two-years blaming the people that were fooled into taking the mortages, because god for bid the need a place to live and all their politicians tell them that this is the good times and buying a house instead of apartment was a must. Heck those companies even ignored their own departments that told them they making dangerous mortages and loans, that would eventually take down their companies.

All that being said does even matter or even address my point.
Simple, thing is The Early Termination Fee (concept) in itself is a legal (my understanding), but only one of many horrible business practices (many of the other are valitations of Antitrust Laws). But I ask if you do not want to trap your customers into staying in contractual requirements that bleed your customers out of money, one minimum sized charge at a time (on top of the other charges that build up to super large charges), then why do you even need The Early Termination Fee, let alone ask for increasing them (as the blog points-out, when one reads it)? The companies always say they must protect themselves from people just leaving their debts, on the companies to pay*. When the real problem is that they want to sell something to customers cannot afford to have it, And why does all those people think they have to have it, simple the companies have Gov. and commericalization to use in making every person avoid feeling out of touch. Here is a solution, straight from our grandparents and great grandparents generations (oh, I guess the younger generations' generational fight just tuned themselves out), strenghten The USA Gov. regulations, of cellphone industry, require the customers to have to pay a UP-FRONT and high price that NOTHING to do with making HUGE and SHORT TERM profits and making sure the customers will be able pay for what they are receiving and they will be able to pay for what they will receive in the near future. End of problem, except it does not get you and the industry the huge and short term profits that your industry lives off of, until your industries' monopolizing and antitrust practices, paying politicians to prevent true regulations and monopolies become so toxic to your own companies that one-set of incidents cause your industry to need bailing-out. Bailed-out by other industries that need youir industry to survive? I am crasy, no bailed-out through our tax-payer money.

This is another problem with comparing home mortages to cellphone pays/renting, Home are necessary and cellphones are not and never will be. No matter how many times our personal conversations and businesses tell us they are.

*- Our Federal Gov. in most cases bails out these debts.
Along with the locking people into one-insurance company for their cellphones replacements, only allowed to get another crapy cellphone that is only-one model up (only once you claim for a replacement), thus unless you are wasting additional money or trying to cheat the insurance and cellphone company you are going to receive a outdate cellphone and etc.
Your and other's arguement that well the customers signed the contract is an arguement that only works in The USA and other countries that have let Big Business take over. If our government actually regulated industries, such as Telecommunications and other industries cellphones apply in, with a biased for the big business or had the departments to actually regulate (like The European countries), then the selection that the customers have, most contracts and Antitrust Laws would be drastically changed. We have grown-up (37-years old) with industries that all the companies come together and decide what to do as group pushing the profits ever so high/actually what Antitrust Laws where created in the first place for. When monopolizing practices are allowed it kills smaller business ability to compete, thus creates monopolies. Same thing was happening before Former President FDR forced them to either change or broke-up the companies within the industries.

Originally Posted by nicknrm

For other agreements that people break, in some cases you land in jail!

You're missing the concept. It is an AGREEMENT.

Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile (now that I think of it may have something similar) have a Month-To-Month type thing where you still need to pass a credit check but there are NO CONTRACTS involved and it DOES NOT have an early termination fee and it is NOT pay as you go.

No, I understand, about contracts/agreements and it not being pay as you go. I have my own company that uses contracts and payments per service. I am not trying to go against companies having costs for those that break contracts, if I was I would be going against my own company. By the way contracts are just strong (maybe even illegal*) agreements with conditions. If one is signing a written agreement with a authorized individual's signature (of some kind) then yes that is a contract/agreement between one and the company.
*-Remember not to skip this extremely important point, The USA & State Gov. determine what is a legal contract or not legal contract, let alone takes actions to void contracts that they determine that are illegal. No matter if the contract is written perfect or involves someone who legally can agree to a contract/agreement. The founding fathers of this country were worried about this. If our Gov. (Feredal and State) was working for their citizens, then I would never even have to bring this up.
I never was talking about pay as you go; what was talking about is not just selling your products to customers to make the immidate profit, because you have tax payer money to fall back on, but to make sure (to the best you can) your customers can pay to the future payments with are apart of the contract. When I do think about the pay as go, type of payment, if you do not use that, then cannot charge any thing per use (per minute, per text and etc). You would have to get paid some how, as the customer uses the product, thus most do Month By Month.
However, what I do not like is that that situation is artifically jacked-up the costs for breaking contracts, set-up and reinforced by Gov. allowing damaging practices and policies to the healthy economies and markets. Since it is that situation they take avantage of their customers with practices and polices that only put more profit to the companies and lower the quality of the companies' products. The customers do not want to break the contracts, not because they cannot afford to pay a fair price for breaking the contracts. Why not ONLY apply a cost to a service &/or product, percentage of the costs that lowers with each month (determined by the lenght of the contract customers sign) of use and figuring the cost to breaking contract, by the the costs left from the months left on the contract? I understand that there are taxes (both Federal and State); however, you know when Gov. does correct un-regulatee paid for regulating then the customers have a lot of choices and not influenced or forced into choices. Under that type of conditions you know if the customers have to pay for the companies' taxes, then they have other choices and more than likely will choose a another that is close or same quality and not passing on cost of taxes to them. Of course, the taxes just are not a lot.
I use generalities; because during this whole thread it is about non-generalities and my posts you did not either understand or agree with what are the factual situations with not just cellphone industry and seem to skip right by them.
You also, want to focus on individual problems with the industry, as if they are separate. I do not, because they can never be in any situation; but mostly because while the individual problems are wrong and need change, the whole problems together are worse and need just as much or more changing (my view).