| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/30/2008 02:29:01 PM · #26 |
As a hobbyist who makes less money from photography in a year than what a photography specific all-risks policy would cost, I'm not that worried about my homeowners' insurance being can canceled because of a claim related to my photography. I definitely need to have liability coverage just in case, but the odds of filing a liability claim for a photography related incident are pretty low.
Am I paranoid about being sued? Absolutely. I've never been sued, but I have a number of friends that have been. Am I paranoid about being sued about my photography in particular? Not so much.
For someone who makes a significant portion of income from photography, this is more of an issue. In that case, in addition to an all-risks policy, I would form an LLC or corporation to protect my personal assets. But I'm just not there. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 03:22:56 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Ann:
As a hobbyist who makes less money from photography in a year than what a photography specific all-risks policy would cost, I'm not that worried about my homeowners' insurance being can canceled because of a claim related to my photography. I definitely need to have liability coverage just in case, but the odds of filing a liability claim for a photography related incident are pretty low.
Am I paranoid about being sued? Absolutely. I've never been sued, but I have a number of friends that have been. Am I paranoid about being sued about my photography in particular? Not so much.
For someone who makes a significant portion of income from photography, this is more of an issue. In that case, in addition to an all-risks policy, I would form an LLC or corporation to protect my personal assets. But I'm just not there. |
I'd suggest then that you're undercharging for your work in that case and exposing yourself to uneeded risk. You may call yourself a "hobbyist" or "amateur", but if you make any money at all, you're a professional when it comes down to it. If you are getting paid on a job and an incident occurs, your homeowner's insurance will possibly not give you any coverage and any monetary awards will come from your pocket, not from your insurance company. They'll seize any liquid assets first like checking and savings accounts, then go after your investments, and finally, they'll attach liens to any property you might own such as your car or house. Exactly how that goes down depends on the laws in the state where you live, but I'm pretty sure it'd be unpleasant to loase everything you've work for through such an incident. You could do like OJ and move to Florida where laws protect people from judgements, but that's a real PITA.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:31:18 PM · #28 |
Spaz I am glad you brought that to the table. What I found out was that my insurance to cover the gear itself was strictly for personal use, when I had a rider. And most umbrella policies will also be of little to no use to you if you are "working" and receiving money for your photography with your gear as well. At least that is what I was told when I had it on my house policy. I was actually told that if I had to file a claim that I should say not mention anything about making money with it. That told me right there I needed real insurance.
Matt
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:34:05 PM · #29 |
I have all of my photographic and computer equipment insured through a company here in Australia. This covers me in the office and out in the field, even all of my studio gear. I also have Public Liability in that as well. It is expensive....but a little less worry when you are on the job.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 04:54:28 PM · #30 |
i'm not sure why you are/were trying to argue - the fees i pay on the policy outside of the homeowners are very reasonable... and again for non-pro use only.
so yeah one claim for a $1200 lens and you're alright - imagine if you had a tree fall on your house a month later, and a major break in two months after that. you think your rates would only go up a few bucks ? add to that you now have three claims in a short period instead of two. does your risk factor increase dramatically ? was it worth it to claim that cheap piece of canon gear in the long run ?
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I just called my insurance carrier and gave them this senario. I drop my camera. The lens and camera are destroyed and need to be replaced. The camera is insured for $3000 and a 24-105 "L" is about $1200. So $4200 in claims, what happens to my homeowners premiums? Her response is, premiums would likely go up $75-80 year for 3 years and then drop back to the normal rate provided I have no other claim in that time period. Essentially I pay $240 +/- to replace $4200 worth of gear instead of forking out $4200 from my pocket to replace it. Don't sound that awful bad to me. You canbet a spacialty insurance carrier is gonna be expensive and probably have a hefty deductible. |
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 05:02:17 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ann:
As a hobbyist who makes less money from photography in a year than what a photography specific all-risks policy would cost, I'm not that worried about my homeowners' insurance being can canceled because of a claim related to my photography. I definitely need to have liability coverage just in case, but the odds of filing a liability claim for a photography related incident are pretty low.
Am I paranoid about being sued? Absolutely. I've never been sued, but I have a number of friends that have been. Am I paranoid about being sued about my photography in particular? Not so much.
For someone who makes a significant portion of income from photography, this is more of an issue. In that case, in addition to an all-risks policy, I would form an LLC or corporation to protect my personal assets. But I'm just not there. |
I'd suggest then that you're undercharging for your work in that case and exposing yourself to uneeded risk. You may call yourself a "hobbyist" or "amateur", but if you make any money at all, you're a professional when it comes down to it. If you are getting paid on a job and an incident occurs, your homeowner's insurance will possibly not give you any coverage and any monetary awards will come from your pocket, not from your insurance company. They'll seize any liquid assets first like checking and savings accounts, then go after your investments, and finally, they'll attach liens to any property you might own such as your car or house. Exactly how that goes down depends on the laws in the state where you live, but I'm pretty sure it'd be unpleasant to loase everything you've work for through such an incident. You could do like OJ and move to Florida where laws protect people from judgements, but that's a real PITA. |
What situation can you give an example of? By 'hobbyist' I gotta assume he's not doing anything with a contract. If you are shooting some friends for $50 or you are snapping landscape shots you are trying to sell on your website, how is the insurance company going to prove you were using it for "business"? If you can't claim the income on your federal taxes as a business (and thus claim deductions) but rather need to claim it as a hobby (no taxes but no deductions), how's that going to help the insurance company's case?
If you have an insurance company getting that sticky, you need a new company. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 05:20:42 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Ann:
As a hobbyist who makes less money from photography in a year than what a photography specific all-risks policy would cost, I'm not that worried about my homeowners' insurance being can canceled because of a claim related to my photography. I definitely need to have liability coverage just in case, but the odds of filing a liability claim for a photography related incident are pretty low.
Am I paranoid about being sued? Absolutely. I've never been sued, but I have a number of friends that have been. Am I paranoid about being sued about my photography in particular? Not so much.
For someone who makes a significant portion of income from photography, this is more of an issue. In that case, in addition to an all-risks policy, I would form an LLC or corporation to protect my personal assets. But I'm just not there. |
I'd suggest then that you're undercharging for your work in that case and exposing yourself to uneeded risk. You may call yourself a "hobbyist" or "amateur", but if you make any money at all, you're a professional when it comes down to it. If you are getting paid on a job and an incident occurs, your homeowner's insurance will possibly not give you any coverage and any monetary awards will come from your pocket, not from your insurance company. They'll seize any liquid assets first like checking and savings accounts, then go after your investments, and finally, they'll attach liens to any property you might own such as your car or house. Exactly how that goes down depends on the laws in the state where you live, but I'm pretty sure it'd be unpleasant to loase everything you've work for through such an incident. You could do like OJ and move to Florida where laws protect people from judgements, but that's a real PITA. |
What situation can you give an example of? By 'hobbyist' I gotta assume he's not doing anything with a contract. If you are shooting some friends for $50 or you are snapping landscape shots you are trying to sell on your website, how is the insurance company going to prove you were using it for "business"? If you can't claim the income on your federal taxes as a business (and thus claim deductions) but rather need to claim it as a hobby (no taxes but no deductions), how's that going to help the insurance company's case?
If you have an insurance company getting that sticky, you need a new company. |
The adjuster sees a claim for $4K in photo gear and googles the claimant's name, finds a website for "Blah, blah Photography" advertising photographic services. That's enough evidence to show you used the gear for work. It's all over. The insurance company can deny your claim on those grounds. And yes, you can fight them, but all I have to say about that is, "Good luck".
Your insurance company may not scrutinize relatively small claims, they may not check on a simple "dropped my camera in the water and it's broken" claim, but if you injure someone while shooting and get sued for a large sum of money, you'd better bet that the insurance company will be looking for a way out. If they can find any way to deny your claim based on "professional use", they will. Then if you want the insurance company to pay your claim, you'll have to fight a two front battle, one against the plaintiff suing you, and another with the insurance company to accept your claim. At that point, you're effectively "self-insured".
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 05:28:10 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The adjuster sees a claim for $4K in photo gear and googles the claimant's name, finds a website for "Blah, blah Photography" advertising photographic services. That's enough evidence to show you used the gear for work. It's all over. The insurance company can deny your claim on those grounds. And yes, you can fight them, but all I have to say about that is, "Good luck".
Your insurance company may not scrutinize relatively small claims, they may not check on a simple "dropped my camera in the water and it's broken" claim, but if you injure someone while shooting and get sued for a large sum of money, you'd better bet that the insurance company will be looking for a way out. If they can find any way to deny your claim based on "professional use", they will. Then if you want the insurance company to pay your claim, you'll have to fight a two front battle, one against the plaintiff suing you, and another with the insurance company to accept your claim. At that point, you're effectively "self-insured". |
So are you saying a pro photographer taking shapshots of his kids at Disneyland who somehow gets sued for some crazy event better have professional liability insurance? Playing the devil's advocate, don't you think the insurance company would claim it wasn't business related and thus deny the liability? |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 05:51:13 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The adjuster sees a claim for $4K in photo gear and googles the claimant's name, finds a website for "Blah, blah Photography" advertising photographic services. That's enough evidence to show you used the gear for work. It's all over. The insurance company can deny your claim on those grounds. And yes, you can fight them, but all I have to say about that is, "Good luck".
Your insurance company may not scrutinize relatively small claims, they may not check on a simple "dropped my camera in the water and it's broken" claim, but if you injure someone while shooting and get sued for a large sum of money, you'd better bet that the insurance company will be looking for a way out. If they can find any way to deny your claim based on "professional use", they will. Then if you want the insurance company to pay your claim, you'll have to fight a two front battle, one against the plaintiff suing you, and another with the insurance company to accept your claim. At that point, you're effectively "self-insured". |
So are you saying a pro photographer taking shapshots of his kids at Disneyland who somehow gets sued for some crazy event better have professional liability insurance? Playing the devil's advocate, don't you think the insurance company would claim it wasn't business related and thus deny the liability? |
I think it's better to have no question about the coverage you have and make sure you're covered.
Your particular insurance policy may have different terms about what constitutes "professional use" and those terms will likely vary from state to state depending on where you get your policy. It's worth reading and understanding your policy and discussing the details of how you use your gear and how that meshes or not, with the coverage you have with your agent.
A friend of mine got sued for accidentally injuring someone and lost a civil case in court. The judgement was for a few hundred thousand dollars, way more money than he had. He also had no liability coverage. After the judgement was issued, they hauled him into court and he had to list all of his property and assets, and what they were worth and what he owed on them as well as his employer and his salary. They then seized all of his accounts, his car(which was the only thing he owned of value) and proceeded to garnish his wages to the tune of 25% of his disposable income. (Disposable income, in this case, is what's left after the goverment takes out its share i.e. taxes and SS etc. and not what's left afetr you pay all of your bills.). That garnishment went on for 6 years and during that time he had to move to a cheaper apartment, drive a crappy car and live like a pauper.
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 17:53:33. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 07:27:25 PM · #35 |
all insurance companies are 'that sticky' unfortunately. IMO anyhow...
too bad their bad investments seem not to be as sticky.,.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you have an insurance company getting that sticky, you need a new company. |
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 19:28:12.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2008 08:31:29 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A friend of mine got sued for accidentally injuring someone and lost a civil case in court. The judgement was for a few hundred thousand dollars, way more money than he had. He also had no liability coverage. After the judgement was issued, they hauled him into court and he had to list all of his property and assets, and what they were worth and what he owed on them as well as his employer and his salary. They then seized all of his accounts, his car(which was the only thing he owned of value) and proceeded to garnish his wages to the tune of 25% of his disposable income. (Disposable income, in this case, is what's left after the goverment takes out its share i.e. taxes and SS etc. and not what's left afetr you pay all of your bills.). That garnishment went on for 6 years and during that time he had to move to a cheaper apartment, drive a crappy car and live like a pauper. |
I agree completely that you should actually read your insurance policies to see what's covered and what isn't. They can be very interesting. For example, I have a musical instrument policy that covers everything except an instrument that's left unattended in a car. So I don't leave my instruments in my car.
It looks like your friend's problems were caused by not having insurance at all, not because he had insurance, but his insurance company wouldn't defend him. I've had three different friends sued for different things. Each time, their insurance company provided the lawyer, and while going through a lawsuit was stressful, they ultimately didn't have to pay anything out of pocket. (Two won, one eventually settled for less than the policy limit.) |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 08:45:46 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
A friend of mine got sued for accidentally injuring someone and lost a civil case in court. The judgement was for a few hundred thousand dollars, way more money than he had. He also had no liability coverage. After the judgement was issued, they hauled him into court and he had to list all of his property and assets, and what they were worth and what he owed on them as well as his employer and his salary. They then seized all of his accounts, his car(which was the only thing he owned of value) and proceeded to garnish his wages to the tune of 25% of his disposable income. (Disposable income, in this case, is what's left after the goverment takes out its share i.e. taxes and SS etc. and not what's left afetr you pay all of your bills.). That garnishment went on for 6 years and during that time he had to move to a cheaper apartment, drive a crappy car and live like a pauper. |
I agree completely that you should actually read your insurance policies to see what's covered and what isn't. They can be very interesting. For example, I have a musical instrument policy that covers everything except an instrument that's left unattended in a car. So I don't leave my instruments in my car.
It looks like your friend's problems were caused by not having insurance at all, not because he had insurance, but his insurance company wouldn't defend him. I've had three different friends sued for different things. Each time, their insurance company provided the lawyer, and while going through a lawsuit was stressful, they ultimately didn't have to pay anything out of pocket. (Two won, one eventually settled for less than the policy limit.) |
Yes, but if your policy doesn't cover you. The Ins Co. is NOT going to provide a lawyer. |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 08:54:54 PM · #38 |
I am with Farmers Insurance for my house policy. I know that my deductible is 900 bucks. I was going to make a claim on a diamond that fell out of a three stone ring. The diamond was 2 grand. They told me that if I did claim, I would get it, but my home owners policy only went up to 1000 bucks in jewelry and my Home policy would go up to 1300 a year.
SO then I asked about the camera stuff I had and they said the same thing would happen.
So one way or another you get screwed on your home owners policy. I would rather go without a camera and wait to buy it and not claim it on the homeowners insurance |
|
|
|
10/30/2008 08:57:33 PM · #39 |
when i insured my stuff, i went to google and typed in 'Camera Insurance'. Now i'm insured against theft, accidental damage, theft from vehicles and a host of other stuff including if i get mugged or something and have my gear stolen. I insured everything- camera, 2 lenses, filters, spare batteries, lens cleaner and everything else in my bag (exclusing my toothpaste (you never know)).
I got mine through JLT who have a division specifically for photography equipment, I think its called CameraGuard but my paperwork is upstairs so dont quote me.
For a year it was about 160 GBP or so.
ETA: I got full worldwide cover too, not just domestic, since I was travelling at the time.
Message edited by author 2008-10-30 20:58:23. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:28:02 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by MattO:
Don't think in today's world it cant happen. It can and does, its unfortunate but I'd prefer to make sure that what I have provided for my wife and son is there regardless of what happens in my photography business. I'm not paranoid, I've never had an accident, nor ever been sued, and I plan to keep it that way. But accidents do happen even when you are most careful.
I have been run over on the sidelines of a game, have take a stray foul ball off my equipment, even taking every precaution you possibly could and still do your job. Accidents and things beyond your control do happen. I prefer to spend a little money and prepare for the day it "might" happen to me.
Matt |
All I'm interested in is protecting my stuff in the event something unfortunate happens to it while I'm out enjoying my hobby.(breakage or theft). All you other people can do whatever you deem is appropriate for you. The average person on this site has no need for a commercial insurance policy to go out and shoot for challenges or maybe take the occasional photo for a friend.
Originally posted by soup:
i'm not sure why you are/were trying to argue |
I'm not trying to argue. I just wanted some verification to your statement saying if I filed a claim that's a rider on a home owners policy, my insurance company might drop me or as you stated, jack my rates way the hell up. Come to find out with my insurance carrier neither statement you made was true. Every insurance company is different.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 09:39:01 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by MattO:
Don't think in today's world it cant happen. It can and does, its unfortunate but I'd prefer to make sure that what I have provided for my wife and son is there regardless of what happens in my photography business. I'm not paranoid, I've never had an accident, nor ever been sued, and I plan to keep it that way. But accidents do happen even when you are most careful.
I have been run over on the sidelines of a game, have take a stray foul ball off my equipment, even taking every precaution you possibly could and still do your job. Accidents and things beyond your control do happen. I prefer to spend a little money and prepare for the day it "might" happen to me.
Matt |
All I'm interested in is protecting my stuff in the event something unfortunate happens to it while I'm out enjoying my hobby.(breakage or theft). All you other people can do whatever you deem is appropriate for you. The average person on this site has no need for a commercial insurance policy to go out and shoot for challenges or maybe take the occasional photo for a friend.
|
Protecting your stuff is really small potatoes. The nightmare that you want to protect yourself from is having something happen and finding out after the fact that your liability coverage does not cover you. If your homeowners policy covers whatever it is that you're doing with your photography, great. If not...well..you can insure yourself or not...just understand that the potential consequences could be financially devastating and affect your life for decades. |
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:15:00 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Protecting your stuff is really small potatoes. The nightmare that you want to protect yourself from is having something happen and finding out after the fact that your liability coverage does not cover you. If your homeowners policy covers whatever it is that you're doing with your photography, great. If not...well..you can insure yourself or not...just understand that the potential consequences could be financially devastating and affect your life for decades. |
This a fair statement when and where it applies. You guys make it sound like everybody packing a tripod and camera out to photgraph Old Faithful needs some type of full blown full coverage insurance, just in case Grandma trips and falls over your gear. This is not the case in general.
|
|
|
|
10/31/2008 11:32:51 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Protecting your stuff is really small potatoes. The nightmare that you want to protect yourself from is having something happen and finding out after the fact that your liability coverage does not cover you. If your homeowners policy covers whatever it is that you're doing with your photography, great. If not...well..you can insure yourself or not...just understand that the potential consequences could be financially devastating and affect your life for decades. |
This a fair statement when and where it applies. You guys make it sound like everybody packing a tripod and camera out to photgraph Old Faithful needs some type of full blown full coverage insurance, just in case Grandma trips and falls over your gear. This is not the case in general. |
No, it's not the case in general. In most cases someone shooting old faithful would be covered by the liability coverage in their homeowner's or renter's policy and don't need to worry about it.
However, there are a lot of people on DPC who flirt with that boundary between amateur and professional and may, unwittingly, be exposing themselves to risk they would be uncomfortable with if they knew. My main point is to know what your insurance will and won't cover with respect to your cameras and especially what you're doing with them should something unfortunate happen.
Basically, you should understand your risk, use insurance to manage your risk to a comfortable level and be aware of the potential consequences of the risks you choose to take. |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 04:57:18 PM · #44 |
nice of you to snip a portion of my statement that suits your argument.
if you read all of what i wrote - maybe you'd retract it... if you're a gambling man - test it out in the 'real' world...
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
I'm not trying to argue. I just wanted some verification to your statement saying if I filed a claim that's a rider on a home owners policy, my insurance company might drop me or as you stated, jack my rates way the hell up. Come to find out with my insurance carrier neither statement you made was true. Every insurance company is different. |
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 16:58:12.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 05:38:30 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by soup:
well yeah, but i would hate to be dropped from the homeowners insurance ( or have the rate jacked way the hell up ) because i broke a $600 lens... one less thing to worry about IMO
the insurer even told me attaching it to our homeowners was a bad idea... |
Filing a claim on homeowners will up your premium - even if the claim is denied! Just calling to see if something is covered can be precarious IF they agent on the phone puts it in their system! I found this out the hard way.
If you make money with your gear then you need it covered as business equipment in some form, either with a home business rider or w/ business insurance.
(jumping ahead about)
Insurance is gambling. You're betting you'll need it and the insurance companies are betting you won't. House always wins in gambling, be that a casino or insurance company. I've paid homeowners insurance for 15 years and never had a claim. I've paid car insurance for even longer and had only 1 claim but that was the best money I'd ever spent - has a classic sports car and the fourth time I drove it a teen girl t-boned me and totaled it. I'd paid $90 in premium to get $4500 in payout. I've still paid, overall, more in car insurance than i've 'benefited' from.
|
|
|
|
11/01/2008 06:07:45 PM · #46 |
For Canadians, this place is really good. They have plans dedicated to people working in media.
//www.cgbgroup.com/contact.html |
|
|
|
11/01/2008 11:42:26 PM · #47 |
word
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Filing a claim on homeowners will up your premium - even if the claim is denied! Just calling to see if something is covered can be precarious IF they agent on the phone puts it in their system! I found this out the hard way.
If you make money with your gear then you need it covered as business equipment in some form, either with a home business rider or w/ business insurance.
(jumping ahead about)
Insurance is gambling. You're betting you'll need it and the insurance companies are betting you won't. House always wins in gambling, be that a casino or insurance company. I've paid homeowners insurance for 15 years and never had a claim. I've paid car insurance for even longer and had only 1 claim but that was the best money I'd ever spent - has a classic sports car and the fourth time I drove it a teen girl t-boned me and totaled it. I'd paid $90 in premium to get $4500 in payout. I've still paid, overall, more in car insurance than i've 'benefited' from. |
Message edited by author 2008-11-01 23:42:39.
|
|
