Insurance would only pay to replace the items that showed physical
damage (normally modems, PSU's and monitors.
This is why I never pay for insurance.
And I DO mean never, apart from a brief period a few years back paying for
life and injury insurance. The whole point is meant to be trust, sharing of
the load in cases of loss, but the entire industry is founded on profit and
distrust.
If a computer worked, then after a nearby lightning strike it does not, and
can easily be shown as not able to pass a POST or show any other seign of
life, the insurance company must either accept that they are liable if it
was insured against lightning strikes, or accept that people are not wrong
to refuse to accept their'services' and therefore not pay for them.
I'd rather put my money steadily into small assets than can be easily
reconverted to cash fairly quickly at a decent rate. I could lose them, or
my life. So long as I did not lose both, either I, or someone else close
enough to me, will benefit in some way. The worst case is very serious
injury combined with loss of all assets. That's very unlikely, and even
people who get everything 'right' can't immunise themselves against that if
it happens.
The whole problem with insurance comes from a situation where people want
to believe they somehow cannot lose. That, coupled with the fact thet they
are ALWAYS losing the moment they start paying premiums, is absurdity. It's
bad enough that we are sometimes forced to do this by law if we want to
drive or own a house, but there's no point in encouraging it.
If someone knows electronics well enough to handle their computers and
other tech stuff, where is the sense in trusting crucial decisions about
that stuff to people who don't, and whos primary motive is profit, or at
least retention of what they now see as their assets?
It's all very well saying that the small amounts from many people cover the
high cost of unlikely events, but what possible use is that if they won't
pay out when the shit hits the fan?
/rant.