For general discussion, what I found interesting was how much more a policy costs if you desired full coverage. When I was researching policies for the Typhoon H (4 companies reviewed) I found it was common for the cost of the policy to double, or more, if you had a need to obtain hull and carried payload coverage. All the carriers required a breakdown of the aircraft components, listing separately by serial number the aircraft, camera type and serial number, and ground station. In discussion with a carrier the additional cost of hull coverage worked to to adding roughly half the cost of each insured component to the annual policy cost. The "added value" of hull coverage is very dependent on the type of system in being insured.
Carrying full liability and hull coverage on a $1,000.00 system is difficult justify as the base rate plus the additional for hull/component coverage raises policy costs to more than the full replacement cost of the system. A deductible (franchise for arruntus) also comes into play with hull coverage. An example here would be $200.00 out of pocket for loss of a CGO-3 and another deductible of $200.00 for the aircraft before the balance was covered by the insurance. So there would an aircraft deductible and camera deductible of $400.00 (or more depending on the deductible requirement) for the operator to pay before an insurance company would cut a check for a new aircraft and camera. As the CGO-3 has a list price of $549 and a BnF H-480 has a list price of ~$499..00, do you pay an extra $800 to $1,200 (per aircraft) for hull coverage or keep it on hand for day to day operational expenses, knowing that you'll be paying another $400 or more if and when you lose one?
The benefit of hull insurance isn't truly realized until the costs of the system become quite high. If flying an Alta with a MoVi and Sony a7rIII w/prime lens the cost of system replacement could easily run $28,000-$30,000. If flying a Red or Arri on the same Alta the replacement cost would jump up to close to $100k or more, which easily justifies the additional cost of hull/carried payload coverage.
What was also interesting is that sUAS insurance, at least for now, costs more than full scale insurance. As an example, a full scale pilot having 500 hours of experience in a Cessna or even a Pitts S2 and equal experience flying sUAS will end up paying a couple hundred $$ more/year for the sUAS coverage.