September 30, 2014, 06:55:29 PM

Author Topic: Insurance is an accessory right? :P  (Read 2117 times)

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 896
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2014, 09:23:29 AM »
Hi Neuro.
Wow that really puts it in to perspective, I would guess that makes it totally intangible to not have insurance!

Cheers Graham.


When I go out with just the camera and only one of my lenses, depending on the lens a 'single loss' represents 30 – 67 years of the premium I currently pay to have all my gear covered.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2014, 09:23:29 AM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2014, 09:48:51 AM »
My insurance bill just arrived at near $800 now (I have everything insured for full MSRP) the premiums have become more painful, but still much less than losing a single lens.

Roo

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2014, 09:51:32 AM »
When you have $10k+ worth of equipment its not an accessory.  Here in Oz, I have mine listed separately on my house contents insurance for an extra $120pa. It covers me wherever I use the equipment for loss or damage and replaces new for old.  This year my old 70-200 2.8 non IS had some moisture damage and was deemed uneconomical to repair so they replaced it with the 2.8 ISii :D  Today I was out taking skiing photos using it and the 24-105 and its good to know its all covered.
5Diii, 60D, Canon 24-105L, Canon 70-200 2.8L is II, Samyang 14 2.8, Tamron 17-50 2.8 vcd, Tamron 90 macro, Tamron 150-600

WilliamRuting

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2014, 10:11:26 AM »
I requested a quote from my homeowner's insurance agent (State Farm)...my homeowner's coverage only covered theft or loss due to theft, no accidental damage.  I got a separate policy with full loss coverage for about $14,000 in gear for around $120.00/yr.  It even provides coverage if I simply drop my camera and it is damaged.  Seems worth it for me (amateur photographer).  They also have a record of all my serial numbers in case of theft

RunAndGun

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2014, 09:38:50 PM »
My policy is "replacement cost", covers rental gear and errors & emissions and liability coverage of $2mil.  This is a true business policy and my premium is about $1800-$1900/year.  But well worth it when you look at the fact that a catastrophic theft would total more than a house.  My first(and thankfully only) theft, which was largely just lighting and grip, went well over $40K, not counting personal effects and damage to my vehicle.  And that was almost a decade ago.

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2014, 10:03:55 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

RunAndGun

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2014, 06:05:08 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #21 on: August 24, 2014, 06:05:08 PM »

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3000
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #22 on: August 25, 2014, 10:05:53 AM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).
That's crazy but not too surprising.  I've worked with actuaries at insurance companies before and they are actually a logical bunch, but the people that you deal with are often quite irrational.  What I know for sure is that you need to be totally honest upfront because they'll find any excuse they can to avoid covering your claim, and the larger it is, the more they dig.

That brings up another good point for everyone.  Please make sure your insurance includes coverage for "mysterious disappearance".  It's when your gear is stolen or lost without explanation.  For example, you leave your gear in your unlocked car at a wedding reception, state park, etc., and minutes later you return and it's gone.  You have no witnesses, no fingerprints, and there's no damage from a break in or something, and the police report indicates just that.  These types of claims are considered a red flag for fraud and many policies exclude coverage altogether.

AcutancePhotography

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 787
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #23 on: August 25, 2014, 11:31:46 AM »
Having said that, in my view, the quality of service offered by USAA has steadily declined since the membership changed.

I have the same experience with GEICO for my auto insurance.  When I first became a customer, GEICO was limited to government employees.  Because of the risk, the costs were low and the coverage was excellent.  Then GEICO opened up to anyone and not only have their prices gone up but their service has gone down.
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

RunAndGun

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2014, 05:08:12 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

It's funny you mention websites.  Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were.  One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website.  They looked at them as a liability.  In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).
That's crazy but not too surprising.  I've worked with actuaries at insurance companies before and they are actually a logical bunch, but the people that you deal with are often quite irrational.  What I know for sure is that you need to be totally honest upfront because they'll find any excuse they can to avoid covering your claim, and the larger it is, the more they dig.

That brings up another good point for everyone.  Please make sure your insurance includes coverage for "mysterious disappearance".  It's when your gear is stolen or lost without explanation.  For example, you leave your gear in your unlocked car at a wedding reception, state park, etc., and minutes later you return and it's gone.  You have no witnesses, no fingerprints, and there's no damage from a break in or something, and the police report indicates just that.  These types of claims are considered a red flag for fraud and many policies exclude coverage altogether.

I actually could rationalize the website part better than I could the TV part.  Nowadays, it seems EVERYONE has a website for everything, but his was probably about 10 years ago…  So many people in this business advertise/list their equipment packages on their sites, especially when it comes to the cameras du jour.  You can get calls JUST because you own a certain piece of gear(C300 is a PERFECT example), whether you're any good or not.  Even if you don't list your address, it doesn't take too long for someone that wants to know it, to find it.  So as an insurance co(and sane person), I can see where a website could be considered a liability(and a shopping list for a thief).  I just didn't get why they considered the liability higher/unmanageable for TV vs. Stills.  Yes, our gear costs more(WAY more), but they said they were fine with the dollar amount of coverage I wanted.   It was probably just ignorance/lack of understanding on the ins co's part, since they don't specialize in the field like the company I deal with for my business policy.

Halfrack

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2014, 07:21:35 PM »
For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution.  I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use.  The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc.  I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.

I feel the need to emphasize this more and more - if you insure your gear as part of your home owners policy, any claim is treated like a major claim against the home and can substantially increase your rates.  Having a policy specific to high value gear makes sure that if something happens, you're going to be covered.
"Me owning a lens shop is kind of like having an alcoholic bar tender." - Roger Cicala

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Insurance is an accessory right? :P
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2014, 07:21:35 PM »