| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2007 06:31:31 PM · #1 |
Who here has their camera, lenses, lights, etc insured? I'm thinking this is something I should begin looking into as I am doing more and more portrait and wedding shoots nowadays and would like some piece of mind incase of theft or accidents. However, I don't even know where to look. Are there special companies that have insurance for photographic equipment?
Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? |
|
|
|
07/15/2007 06:35:49 PM · #2 |
| If you are a homeowner or renter and have contents coverage your company should be able to write an all risk rider for your equipment...keep in mind, this being insurance, "all risk" means ALL except for those specifically excluded....like nuclear attack, et al. |
|
|
|
07/15/2007 06:37:44 PM · #3 |
My home insurance won't cover single items as valuable as my camera equipment, and certainly not outside the house in everyday photographer territory (and holiday insurance most definitely does not). I use specialist photo insurance providers.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2007 06:40:56 PM · #4 |
You can't get a Valuable Personal Articles rider on your Homeowners? In the land of Lloyd's?
Message edited by author 2007-07-15 18:41:34. |
|
|
|
07/15/2007 06:47:53 PM · #5 |
If you use your equipment to generate revenue you will need to purchase a commercial insurance policy. Ask a local photographer that you know for a reference to a good insurer.
Cost on commercial policies can really fluctuate between insurers so it really pays to shop around when you have to go commercial.
Often the best commercial rates can be found through a professional organization such as a professional organization of photographers - if there is such a group.
If you do not use your equipment to generate revenue, then you should be able to get your camera equipment "scheduled" on a separate all risk "personal articles" policy or as an endorsement onto your homeowner's (or renter's) policy.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2007 06:49:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by banmorn:
You can't get a Valuable Personal Articles rider on your Homeowners? In the land of Lloyd's? |
Sadly, while only around the corner from me, Lloyds is not so interested in writing policies for a few thousand quid's worth of kit.
It is possible to get valuables added to home insurance using my provider, but the cover is relatively expensive and incomplete when considering camera kit - most especially in the foreign travel bit (which is where I most want the insurance).
Message edited by author 2007-07-15 18:49:55.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 06:11:16 PM · #7 |
If you charging for your work get a general business liability policy - it will cover you against all sorts of issues - damaging a client's property is the most common, but a slip and fall at your house should be covered as well if you have clients to your home.
It also covers cash on hand, on the way to the bank and the like, lible if you run an ad and get sued, your office equipment (computers, etc) and you can have your gear covered as well. Lots more such as inventory, samples, data, will pay for rent to get you back in business if you place of business is out of commission, loss of income, etc.
Some companies specialize in photography businesses and some insure any business. I went with Zurich after much research - a tad less money and a tad more coverage and they didn't need an itemized list of gear with serial numbers for every item.
Expect to pay $500-600 a year. I've not 'needed' it until I was asked to shoot a county fair - I had to have insurance to do it.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 06:16:37 PM · #8 |
Being a member of hte PPA, they offer insurance plans and health benefit plans. They have been the best that I have found.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 06:33:57 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
Being a member of hte PPA, they offer insurance plans and health benefit plans. They have been the best that I have found. |
How much is PPA and what would an insurance quote go for?
I'm currently paying about $500 for about $5,200 worth of equipment and liability. I personally think that's high...but maybe not.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 06:39:08 PM · #10 |
As a non-professional, when I was putting together my condo policy, State Farm asked a series of generic questions about how much various things were worth. When they asked about cameras and camcorders, I merely told them $2000 and left it at that. And that's how I insure my camera.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 06:47:06 PM · #11 |
A caution about using homeowners coverage for your camera.
If you do anything to earn money with photography, that will give the insurance company grounds to deny any claim for photo gear you might make against the policy.
Message edited by author 2007-07-16 18:47:39. |
|
|
|
07/16/2007 06:54:08 PM · #12 |
And if you do anything other than a few selected things - drop the camera, get it wet from a plumbing problem, get it stolen, damage by fire, they won't cover. Mine got messed up from a wave at a beach and this was excluded from coverage.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A caution about using homeowners coverage for your camera.
If you do anything to earn money with photography, that will give the insurance company grounds to deny any claim for photo gear you might make against the policy. |
|
|
|
|
07/16/2007 07:01:04 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A caution about using homeowners coverage for your camera.
If you do anything to earn money with photography, that will give the insurance company grounds to deny any claim for photo gear you might make against the policy. |
Well, since my insurance company flat out refused to insure it under a professional policy, I decided that getting reimbursed for the cost of prints from my parents doesn't count as professional. Strangely, they had no issue at all with $2000 of nonspecific camera equipment under my condo policy.
BTW, the reason they denied it was because they didn't like that I would be carrying it up into the mountains on the trail and whatnot. Because, you know, that's SO much more dangerous than shooting downtown. Bears and mountain lions are well known for their tendency to mug hikers and dropping it in the grass is WAAAY worse than dropping it on a hard concrete sidewalk. I have no idea what their logic is, really.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 08:51:48 AM · #14 |
Look at it from the insurance company's perspective - lots of people apparenty have claims for what's called 'mysterious disappearance', and that's never covered. Theft yes, but one's negligence is not covered (ooops, I lost it! or Ooops, I dropped it, now I get a new one!)
As for insuring in the mountains or the city? Never heard of such a thing. It's like insuring a car for only certain roads or something. I've seen policies that only cover certain countries - my policy is that way - my gear is covered everywhere but my liability insurance is only good in the US and US territories.
This is why you have to actually READ your insurance policy and ask questions. I can manufacture something and sell millions and I'm covered against product liability - so says my policy. It's in there if I need it or not.
I've had car policies specifically state that delivery use is not covered - so deliver pizza and have an accident and you're not covered. Same for camera gear- using it professionally exposes it to more risk, and more risk equates to higher premiums.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 08:56:23 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A caution about using homeowners coverage for your camera.
If you do anything to earn money with photography, that will give the insurance company grounds to deny any claim for photo gear you might make against the policy. |
Well, since my insurance company flat out refused to insure it under a professional policy, I decided that getting reimbursed for the cost of prints from my parents doesn't count as professional. Strangely, they had no issue at all with $2000 of nonspecific camera equipment under my condo policy.
|
Unfortunately, the decision about what counts as business usage isn't really up to you. If your camera gets stolen and they discover something as small as offering prints for sale on DPCPrints, they likely would deny your claim.
Going to your homeowner's insurance company for the right coverage is unlikely to result in decent coverage unless they also cover similar businesses. What probably happened is that whoever evaluated your request for coverage did not understand photography or the photo business and was used to only evaluating coverage for typical thing like houses, personal property and cars. So, they did the safe thing, which was to decline the risk.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 09:01:08. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 09:02:18 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Well, since my insurance company flat out refused to insure it under a professional policy, I decided that getting reimbursed for the cost of prints from my parents doesn't count as professional. Strangely, they had no issue at all with $2000 of nonspecific camera equipment under my condo policy.
BTW, the reason they denied it was because they didn't like that I would be carrying it up into the mountains on the trail and whatnot. Because, you know, that's SO much more dangerous than shooting downtown. Bears and mountain lions are well known for their tendency to mug hikers and dropping it in the grass is WAAAY worse than dropping it on a hard concrete sidewalk. I have no idea what their logic is, really. |
Rebecca, your website says you offer prints for sale - that is enough to void your coverage under your condo policy. You should speak to another company about insuring your equipment if your current company doesn't want to insure it properly.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 10:34:54 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Rebecca, your website says you offer prints for sale - that is enough to void your coverage under your condo policy. You should speak to another company about insuring your equipment if your current company doesn't want to insure it properly. |
Actually, that's not true for all insurance companies. My own personal homeowner's insurance company allowed me to insure my equipment with a rider on my personal HO policy, and they check in with me every 6 months or so to see if I'm making too much money, etc. It's a fine line for sure, but they know exactly what I'm doing and they still are letting me insure under a personal rider. The cool part is that if anything tragic ever does happen, I'm confident my claim won't get denied based on business use. :) Eventually my needs may change, but my insurance company is awesome and they've said they'll let me know when that is so I don't have to worry about it.
I also have extra super-duper coverage for my laptop and all my photography software, which was a lot less expensive than I thought. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 11:45:00 AM · #18 |
What's the insurance company you use L2?
I will check State Farm and Zurich. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:00:39 PM · #19 |
| I never tried insuring my camera stuff, but I did recently start my own business...I have full insurance, and I opted to get my equipment covered against theft, fire, etc...that was only an additional $175 a year...and that covers up to 9k of equipment. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:04:04 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by idnic:
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Well, since my insurance company flat out refused to insure it under a professional policy, I decided that getting reimbursed for the cost of prints from my parents doesn't count as professional. Strangely, they had no issue at all with $2000 of nonspecific camera equipment under my condo policy.
BTW, the reason they denied it was because they didn't like that I would be carrying it up into the mountains on the trail and whatnot. Because, you know, that's SO much more dangerous than shooting downtown. Bears and mountain lions are well known for their tendency to mug hikers and dropping it in the grass is WAAAY worse than dropping it on a hard concrete sidewalk. I have no idea what their logic is, really. |
Rebecca, your website says you offer prints for sale - that is enough to void your coverage under your condo policy. You should speak to another company about insuring your equipment if your current company doesn't want to insure it properly. |
The camera they're insuring has never been used for any professional purpose and they don't want to insure it anyway, so this is as close as it gets. Basically I'm screwed either way, and at least this way I have a longshot chance if something did happen.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:44:05 PM · #21 |
| Get some, it's cheap. A week ago I dropped a video camera that was only a month old. Broke it good. No Insurance on any of my $8000 worth of cameras. I immediately called and got 100% full coverage with no deductible and covers every possible way to lose or damage equipment. The rider on my home insurance cost less than $53 per year. I used USAA insurance but imagine most carriers are about the same. Best of luck. Oh I was lucky on the HD video cam, had to replace a 12 pin connector that sheared off and oly cost $85. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 12:46:16 PM · #22 |
I have a rider on my home-owners insurance to cover anything happening to my camera and lens. It runs about $5/month (to cover about $5000 equipment). It covers EVERYTHING (we can all recall me falling into the pond with the 5D) but pays a depreciated value for replacement. My regular home-owners however would pay for normal loss with a deductable but at full replacement value.
The pond incident was about $500 in repairs and I had paid 2 months premiums. It will be a long time before they break even on my policy... ;)
Edit to add I use USAA too. I'm glad Phantom got the policy above. How could you go wrong for $5/month?
I'll re-edit to add that USAA never even asked whether I was a professional. I had no problem getting the claim paid. Now I don't shoot weddings and portraits and stuff like that. It might be a little harder under those circumstances.
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 12:52:59.
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 01:04:49 PM · #23 |
Since I called USAA and haven't seen police yet (on a trip) I didn't Know it was "depreciated value". I assumed, silly me, it was full replacement like homeowners is.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have a rider on my home-owners insurance to cover anything happening to my camera and lens. It runs about $5/month (to cover about $5000 equipment). It covers EVERYTHING (we can all recall me falling into the pond with the 5D) but pays a depreciated value for replacement. My regular home-owners however would pay for normal loss with a deductable but at full replacement value.
The pond incident was about $500 in repairs and I had paid 2 months premiums. It will be a long time before they break even on my policy... ;)
Edit to add I use USAA too. I'm glad Phantom got the policy above. How could you go wrong for $5/month?
I'll re-edit to add that USAA never even asked whether I was a professional. I had no problem getting the claim paid. Now I don't shoot weddings and portraits and stuff like that. It might be a little harder under those circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
07/17/2007 02:52:56 PM · #24 |
| I have a rider on my home/auto that covers theft, damage, or any other loss. Covers all camera equipment, lighting, backdrops/supports (yup I own it, no clue how to use it all lol) and all computers. The additional cost was the same as adding my now 16 year old to my auto policy......... Sit down......$0.00. It's a great company and I pay less to boot its AAA rated. |
|
|
|
07/17/2007 03:30:30 PM · #25 |
I dropped my 300D, lens was broke and body would not work, one of the contact pins was pushed in. I was covered under my house contents for any single item upto £2,500. This covered accidental damage and also covered me for 60 days overseas. Rang them up they took my details and passed them to Jessops (photog store in UK). Jessops rang me and said they would replace the camera. They sent me vouchers which I could use for anything photographic in their store. I paid extra and came out with a 30D. No hassle at any point. The insurance company (Direct Line) nor Jessops never even wanted to look at the 300D.
Edit to add -- this was the first time ever that I had made an insurance claim and I have had insurance from various companies for over 20 years.
Edit to add again - my use is not for buisiness so probably not relevent here! Must read thread properly!
Message edited by author 2007-07-17 15:35:06. |
|
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: 07/30/2025 06:57:16 PM EDT.
