| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/20/2006 11:01:00 PM · #1 |
I am starting to make more and more income from photography. Its also made me more and more paranoid about my equipment (even more than I was before).
Do any of you have insurance specifically for your equipment? Is it worth it? |
|
|
|
07/20/2006 11:08:32 PM · #2 |
not specifically for my equipment, but its covered under my renters insurance for my apartment
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:06:25 AM · #3 |
As long as it's not used for business your homeowners or renters insurance may cover some of it - you need to call and check. many times there is alimit on 'camera equipment' and unless you itemize waht you have and what you paid for it you may be subject to a cap on a loss.
99% of homeowners policies will not pay for equipment used for a business, so you'd need insurance that will. From my shopping around policies start at $15,000 in equipment - you can insure less but the premium is the same. You have to list and itemize everything - if it's not on the list it's not covered.
To make it affordable you often get a $1000 deductible, and beleive me, a claim will raise your rates, perhaps 20-30% a year. So if you drop or lose your 10D it's not worth claiming it. Now if someone walks off with your backpack, then yeah, it's probably worth it.
You can be talking $200-400 a year though. Call your local insurance guy and you can also check PPA and WPIA, and wedj.com.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:09:16 AM · #4 |
| Yup! What the prof said... about $300/year will not only cover your equipment, but also liability if someone gets hurt or sues. Its worth the small investment - 'specially when your equipment cost increases with every job/upgrade/situation. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:37:54 AM · #5 |
| I say this everytime a thread like this comes up. Whatever you do, if you are making money from photography, don't try to get your losses covered under your homeowner's/renter's insurance. In addition to being considered insurance fraud, you'll get screwed out of any compensation whatsoever. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 02:24:32 AM · #6 |
And one more thing - check with car insurance - many policies specifically state business use is not covered.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 03:08:45 AM · #7 |
I got some good advice regarding extended warranties on this thread
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=421695 (extended warranties)
Hope it helps. :)
Message edited by author 2006-07-21 03:09:13. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 03:32:57 AM · #8 |
I pay $80/yr for $5500 worth of itemized equipment. It goes up about $4 for every $300 I add.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 07:04:42 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I pay $80/yr for $5500 worth of itemized equipment. It goes up about $4 for every $300 I add. |
Is that under homeowners, renters or business? If you dont mind posting the carrier, that would help to....
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 08:29:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I pay $80/yr for $5500 worth of itemized equipment. It goes up about $4 for every $300 I add. |
Who is this through?
I just paid $500 for $5,500 worth of equipment and about $300,000 liability. I think I made a stupid mistake!
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 08:49:11 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Maverick:
not specifically for my equipment, but its covered under my renters insurance for my apartment |
Same with me. I have $20,000 worth of coverage for $135/year through Geico. That covers loss anywhere I travel to and in my car, providing I get a police report. The only thing it doesn't cover is breakage.
Originally posted by pottersclay75:
Is it worth it? |
I'll let you know if I ever have it stolen.
Message edited by author 2006-10-02 20:50:59.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2006 08:54:57 PM · #12 |
| I keep going back and forth about insurance because it would cost me more to insure my camera than I pay to insure my car, but then again, I PAID more for my camera than I did for my car. |
|
|
|
10/02/2006 09:52:23 PM · #13 |
Hill and Usher is an insurance company that creates policies specifically for photographers.
Again, if you are doing photography as a business, you can't cover your equipment OR liability under your homeowners/renters insurance. |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 07:05:26 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hill and Usher is an insurance company that creates policies specifically for photographers.
Again, if you are doing photography as a business, you can't cover your equipment OR liability under your homeowners/renters insurance. |
About what do they run for a business?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 07:13:00 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hill and Usher is an insurance company that creates policies specifically for photographers.
Again, if you are doing photography as a business, you can't cover your equipment OR liability under your homeowners/renters insurance. |
not totally true
there are home based business policies.
they have a upper cap. on earnigs from the home based business (50k/yr or something like that...)
the one i've got will cover 20k worth of equip. in home or not
it is attached to my home owners policy (additionl 250$ or there'bouts )
will cover loss of business, loss of inventory (only while situated in the house ) & etc ..
compared to the all perials which would cover the items BUT not if they are used to generate income ...
(allstate ins. of canada)
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 07:22:18 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hill and Usher is an insurance company that creates policies specifically for photographers.
Again, if you are doing photography as a business, you can't cover your equipment OR liability under your homeowners/renters insurance. |
not totally true
there are home based business policies.
they have a upper cap. on earnigs from the home based business (50k/yr or something like that...)
the one i've got will cover 20k worth of equip. in home or not
it is attached to my home owners policy (additionl 250$ or there'bouts )
will cover loss of business, loss of inventory (only while situated in the house ) & etc ..
compared to the all perials which would cover the items BUT not if they are used to generate income ...
(allstate ins. of canada) |
Not sure that those are a possibility here in the US. Does it also have liability coverage for your business? In lawsuit happy America, that's a need too.
In any event, the point is that you have coverage specifically allowing business use of your photography equipment, but a typical homeowners policy does not allow such use. People need to understand that just because they have a homeowner's/renter's policy, there is not de facto coverage for equipment used for a business. Claims filed under homeowner's/renter's insurance for business losses are a big no no.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 07:25:02 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hill and Usher is an insurance company that creates policies specifically for photographers.
Again, if you are doing photography as a business, you can't cover your equipment OR liability under your homeowners/renters insurance. |
About what do they run for a business? |
Why don't you ask them? Rates will vary greatly depending on your needs.
Hill & Usher |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 07:33:05 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by ralph:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Hill and Usher is an insurance company that creates policies specifically for photographers.
Again, if you are doing photography as a business, you can't cover your equipment OR liability under your homeowners/renters insurance. |
not totally true
there are home based business policies.
they have a upper cap. on earnigs from the home based business (50k/yr or something like that...)
the one i've got will cover 20k worth of equip. in home or not
it is attached to my home owners policy (additionl 250$ or there'bouts )
will cover loss of business, loss of inventory (only while situated in the house ) & etc ..
compared to the all perials which would cover the items BUT not if they are used to generate income ...
(allstate ins. of canada) |
Not sure that those are a possibility here in the US. Does it also have liability coverage for your business? In lawsuit happy America, that's a need too.
In any event, the point is that you have coverage specifically allowing business use of your photography equipment, but a typical homeowners policy does not allow such use. People need to understand that just because they have a homeowner's/renter's policy, there is not de facto coverage for equipment used for a business. Claims filed under homeowner's/renter's insurance for business losses are a big no no. |
having this policy, pushed the liability insurance so it was coverd under the homeowners --
i would not say this was for everyone either - there were a significanly number of caveats that could potentially limit my coverage (I.E. no sales out side of country.. and limited coverage on equiment outside of the country)
BUT for my limited market (and non-existant sales ) this was 'ok'
--BUT without it - if my house burnt down - maximum 2500$ coverage ..
Ummm thats not enough.....
Message edited by author 2006-10-03 19:33:26.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:03:51 PM · #19 |
OK well I'm in a delima and cant seem to find my way out. I carried a "floater" on my Home owners for my equipment. However now that I'm a working freelancer I cant use that policy anymore. The only thing I can find locally is a an agent who works with Inland marine. However coverage policies start at $15000 in equipment. He says that policy will cost me around $800 a year. He says its not worth putting insurance on my equipment. Well personally I think insuring 6k worth of equipment is worth it. Just not at the price he is asking. Can anyone offer a contact to a company that can do affordable policies? I checked HIll and Usher, but to me the application process seems to require that I have an actual company rather then just being a person with a camera who makes a little money here and there. I dont know seems to me I should be insured, just nobody wants to cover me unless I want nearly 3 times the coverage I need.
MattO
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:08:56 PM · #20 |
| I have my camera equipment scheduled through my AAA renters insurance. It is covered under your renters insurance, but is subject to the deductible / depreciation, however, much of this can be overcome if you schedule it separately. I think it came to about $50/yr for my equipment, which I consider a good investment. |
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:26:20 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by ButterflySis:
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I pay $80/yr for $5500 worth of itemized equipment. It goes up about $4 for every $300 I add. |
Who is this through?
I just paid $500 for $5,500 worth of equipment and about $300,000 liability. I think I made a stupid mistake! |
You can do better - hill and usher will do $1 mill liability and 15k in coverage for $550 or so. their policy also covers all sorts of other odds and ends for photographers. I am awaiting a quote from Seabury and Smith/Marsh which is the other biggie for photogs and similar.
You can also check wedj.com if your a pro.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:27:13 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by md8speed:
I have my camera equipment scheduled through my AAA renters insurance. It is covered under your renters insurance, but is subject to the deductible / depreciation, however, much of this can be overcome if you schedule it separately. I think it came to about $50/yr for my equipment, which I consider a good investment. |
As long as you don't use it for business, to earn money, then it won't be covered. You coul lie, but that's insurance fraud.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:31:51 PM · #23 |
i have an equipment policy thru state farm ( i do have house and auto with them also) for $100 a year. it is full coverage.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:33:32 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by MattO:
OK well I'm in a delima and cant seem to find my way out. I carried a "floater" on my Home owners for my equipment. However now that I'm a working freelancer I cant use that policy anymore. The only thing I can find locally is a an agent who works with Inland marine. However coverage policies start at $15000 in equipment. He says that policy will cost me around $800 a year. He says its not worth putting insurance on my equipment. Well personally I think insuring 6k worth of equipment is worth it. Just not at the price he is asking. Can anyone offer a contact to a company that can do affordable policies? I checked HIll and Usher, but to me the application process seems to require that I have an actual company rather then just being a person with a camera who makes a little money here and there. I dont know seems to me I should be insured, just nobody wants to cover me unless I want nearly 3 times the coverage I need.
MattO |
I agree!
I want liability more than equipment coverage. With a deductible of $1000 and the real chance you'll not be able to renew I wouldn't make a claim unless my entire bag went for a walk.
The companies I've talked with will insure less than $15k, but they charge the same - it's sort of a minimum. And if you travel outside the US read the fine print as many don't cover even canada.
Most of the quotes i've gotten are around $550-600. I can get just liability for $350, but haven't really looked at just equipment insurance.
Check the PJ website //www.photojournalist.org/ - the NPPA and ASMP offer insurance to their members - as does PPA, but that's thru hill and usher and i can get essentially the same thing w/o joining PPA.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2006 08:33:49 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jfwolpert:
i have an equipment policy thru state farm ( i do have house and auto with them also) for $100 a year. it is full coverage. |
I called state farm today. They wont cover freelancers, only do studio things. And my equipment wouldnt be covered under a homeowners policy there since I am a freelancer.
MattO
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 12:52:32 AM EDT.
