Insurance must be judged on two levels see the text below to understand

Hard to say what one thinks of a service, when it no longer useless.
Indeed, when I ordered my equipment, I had to take mandatory insurance at the same time.
When I have to say is simultaneously I should have said (because it is optional).

So I was delivered within the hour that followed and I have been debited immediately. But ... because there is a but ... the delivery time becomes too long, I canceled my order and I could not cancel the insurance ... so hard to say it covers well claims.
Moreover, one can find that the offer - and that's why I give a note on the principle of the existence of this guarantee.
Then would have to criticisms concern the refund process when there is an incident. Everything else is superfluous, these are just words or prejudice.

It would be desirable that such insurance existed for the same equipment already purchased. It happened to me indeed an "accident" paying my camera bag to a friend, he did not see that the top cover was opened and two goals were fractured by falling. Cost: 2000 euro. Unable to repair them. Know the other hand, that the liability insurance of the person who created the accident does not, contrary to the beliefs of some people. As owner, you assume all. Moreover, imagine making each play its insurance to replace obsolete equipment .... therefore, such insurance may at any rate taking into account the value and indicating the rate of obsolescence, exist specifically for the particular problems of breakage .

Overall Rating: 8/10 for the existence of such a guarantee for the repayment ....: no experience to judge.