Insurance

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[cramej]

I previously had mine covered with a rider on my homeowner's insurance - about $10k worth of equipment. At that level it was about $300/year. Unfortunately, since a lot of the equipment was no longer available new, my agent said the adjuster would likely base a claim on current cost to replace and not new value. I had to provide my agent with an approximate cost to replace when I set up the policy. I no longer have the policy since I sold my digital equipment and the cost to replace most anything I have isn't worth paying insurance for.

 

[ann]

I have a rider on my insurance and it wasn’t expensive
Just had to provide them with receipts

 

[removed account4]

if you take your gear out of the house and do things on the road
your homeowners might not cover it, i'd check to see if it does
what you might want to look into (and it is well worth it) is a BOP
( business owners policy ) with a "marine float"
( covers your gear when you aren't at home )
you need to have itemized inventory of everything you own with replacement costs
( ebay completed auctions work well for this because the hasselhoff you paid 5Gs for can be replaced for 200$ ).
it also covers you if lets say you were photographing on a street and someone trips over your tripod leg and breaks their hip
and the other person suffers a concussion when they fallen into and hit their head on the mailbox. this is why
( i usually have 4 cones and some police danger tape in a giant square whenever i am doing street work. )
in case you don't have cones and tape usually there is a 1,000,000$ aggregate incase you run into a problem.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

No, it probably won't cover it but I paid enough in insurance to rebut half of what I own in 2nd -hand equipment.

 

[Eric Rose]

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.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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.

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

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

without insurance, you won't be sued; with insurance they will be all after you because, without it, there is nothing to get.

 

[sterioma]

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.

Of course math is in their favor, otherwise they could not sustain a profitable business.

As a customer, though, it all boils down to your risk aversion. Some people are happy to pay to have piece of mind, even knowing that the cost of the insurance does not strictly correlate to the probability of a loss.

I don't have insurance for my photo gear (which I mostly bought used), but I do for a luxury watch which I bought new.

 

[removed account4]

without insurance, you won't be sued; with insurance they will be all after you because, without it, there is nothing to get.

not sure about that .. maybe In Europe but not here... at least in the States ( where OP is from )
it is a litigious society, someone stubs their toe on your camera bag the
lawyers are called &c. still regarding equipment, unless it is high end and irreplaceable .. sometimes
film gear costs less than the insurance seeing we live in the day and age of pro-level film gear being acquired
at a fraction of the price it would have cost new, when it was new in the 1980s/1990s..​

 

[Jim Jones]

We should be vigilant in protecting our gear from damage, loss, or theft. Good insurance is another layer of protection, especially for those who will not or cannot be careful enough. A wise man said, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Much later another wise man said, "Pull all your eggs in the one basket and - WATCH THAT BASKET." Mark Twain, in Pudd'nhead Wilson.

 

[nsurit]

I would ask my insurance agent about how I could best cover it. Typically, if covered on you homeowners policy, it would be covered for the same risks, with the same deductibles as your personal property in the homeowners policy. If on the other hand you had it scheduled on a separate policy you likely would have it covered for all risk, world wide without a deductible. You drop your camera while photographing apes in Africa. Covered on the scheduled policy, not on the homeowners policy. Camera gets stolen when your room is broken into on trip to Italy. Covered on both policies, however subject to a deductible when covered on your homeowners. Again, my advice would be to talk to your insurance agent about how to cover it with policies available in your state. Yes, I am a retired insurance agent who insures some of his gear on a separate policy (the stuff I normally would travel with) and most is only covered as part of the contents of my home. Premiums tend to be relatively low for a scheduled policy (maybe $15 + or - per $1,000 on an annual basis.) Check with your agent.

 

[Luis-F-S]

I have my liability insurance with the carrier that insures Professional Photographers of America members. They automatically cover up to $15,000 in equipment loss which more than covers the gear I carry on jobs. At home, we have video cameras, alarm and a 25 CF safe for the gear.

 

[MattKing]

In many cases, the defence costs covered by liability insurance are more expensive than the damage awards themselves.
And in our system, you cannot find out from a prospective defendant if they are insured until you are a very long way into the litigation process.

 

[guangong]

Insurance is a gamble. In this case the insurance company is betting that you won’t have your equipment destroyed by fire, lost, stolen, etc and you are betting that these things will happen to you. Also, from my experience with building insurance, the company only has to claim that you were negligent and you will get nothing.

 

[removed account4]

Also, from my experience with building insurance, the company only has to claim that you were negligent and you will get nothing

its my experinece too, and some companies with insurance have a moat, aligators, and large wall to keep people away
because 1-they don't want to pay out, so they make it difficult ( see opening scene of the incredibles movie ) and
because 2 - there are a lot of scammers.

 

[Pieter12]

I understand that insurance companies are in the business of not paying claims. I was just curious to see if anyone had experience with specialized photo gear insurance and whether it was worth it.

 

[MattKing]

I have indirect experience with insurance on camera equipment - friends and clients who made claims.
The ones who had high end, current equipment insured were more satisfied with the claim payout than the ones who insured older, non-collectible equipment.

 

[nsurit]

OK, during my career with the largest property/casualty company in the USA as both customer and agent, I've had claims on both current high tech digital equipment and old film equipment. Claims were handled well in both cases. If you are using old equipment and have replacement cost coverage, you will be paid what it would cost to replace you item with like kind and quality (you can read this as used) as opposed to cost new. I'm good with that. My 100mm f2 Olympus Zuiko gets stolen, and get it replaced with another one. Concerned about condition, photograph what you use and keep a file. If your company writes a stated value policy, that is also OK. You get to settle your claim before your loss. Talk to your agent about deductibles, exclusions and risks covered, Your best coverage will probably be separate floater policy (all risk, worldwide coverage.)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Of course math is in their favor, otherwise they could not sustain a profitable business.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most home owner or renter insurance will add photographic equipment with what they consider appropriate documentation.

 

[removed account4]

without insurance, you won't be sued; with insurance they will be all after you because, without it, there is nothing to get.

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 )

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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 )

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....

 

[removed account4]

yup ralph, that is what they say !
watch out for black cats,
cracks on the sidewalk and ladders..
AND most importantly people who are oblivious and self absorbed with
their cellphone and stumble into your tripod ..
bestofluck !