Bengal offered some very interesting points which have me thinking. But I still can't get over one thing. Several here are proffering that if a buyer specifically opts not to pay for insurance in order to save money, he still has 'fulfilled his part of the contract' and should be guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. So you' re saying that if he pays for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. And if he specifically chooses not pay for the insurance he is guaranteed delivery of the goods or money back. This assertion would completely invalidate any basis a seller has for charging the buyer the cost of insurance in the first place. It makes no sense. Logic dictates, to me anyway, that by specifically opting not to pay for insurance in order to save money, the buyer is conciously exchanging his guarantee of receiving the goods in favor of a guarantee that the goods will merely be shipped, and that in such a case the seller has fulfilled his end of the contract by the act of shipping the merchandise. Simply put the buyer assumes a risk in order to save money. It seems obvious to me, to the point that I've mentally debated the risk to me of the insurance/no insurance question for very low priced items I've bought. Hundreds of times in fact.