No, it probably won't cover it but I paid enough in insurance to rebut half of what I own in 2nd -hand equipment.I am looking to insure my gear against fire & theft, etc. Although it is not being used professionally, I seem to have a lot of cameras and lenses that add up to a considerable value. What have other done? I don't think my homeowner's insurance will cover it, even with a rider.
insurances, just like extende3d warranties, are only good for the companies who offer them; otherwise, they wouldn't. on average, you're better off without them. that's how the math plays out.Even though I do not do any pro work anymore I still use my equipment for the non-profit work I do. So I have kept my insurance on my most used gear. We have a separate rider for it.
insurances, just like extende3d warranties, are only good for the companies who offer them; otherwise, they wouldn't. on average, you're better off without them. that's how the math plays out.
without insurance, you won't be sued; with insurance they will be all after you because, without it, there is nothing to get.maybe, but when you need the insurance it is there ... like in the scenario i jokingly made
someone trips over your tripod while on the street, with no insurance you would no doubt be bankrupted
no with insurance because 2 personal injury lawyers would be after you for all sorts of things,,,
amd your camera is cooked
Of course math is in their favor, otherwise they could not sustain a profitable business.insurances, just like extende3d warranties, are only good for the companies who offer them; otherwise, they wouldn't. on average, you're better off without them. that's how the math plays out.
without insurance, you won't be sued; with insurance they will be all after you because, without it, there is nothing to get.
Also, from my experience with building insurance, the company only has to claim that you were negligent and you will get nothing
exactly, but we can do the same and stay away from insurances or extended warranties and make the math work for us, unless that warm fuzzy feeling of fake security is worth it to you but then, you can probably afford buying again too.Of course math is in their favor, otherwise they could not sustain a profitable business.
without insurance, you won't be sued; with insurance they will be all after you because, without it, there is nothing to get.
well, if 'seinfeld' is your source of information,wh can argue with that. lawyers always go for the fattest pot and it takes a lot before a judge allows a person to be sued ou of their house. Insurance companies like to sell based on fear and a false sense of security; there is a sucker born....no clue how you came up with that ralph,
without insurance you can still be sued in court for pain and suffering. lost wages,
damage to property and all sorts of other things. if you don't have insurance
they will put a lein on your earnings until you pay off the amount of the judgement.
on seinfeld, a judge decreed the uninsured guy be jerry's personal butler until the debt was paid off
(indentured servitude) maybe in europe when someone is injured do to someone's
negligence they just get themselves repaired and move on, but in the states it is quite different...
in some cases insurance is mandatory ... ( including insurance for photographers )
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?