Is your midrange gear insured?

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I've insured it after I bought an apartment, and had to insure it & it's content. I've extended the photography equipment's insurance to cover it's use outside my apartment.

I didn't insure the cheaper items (filters, 2nd hand film camera, P&S, etc) as in the long range, buying new would be cheaper than having it insurance company pay for it.

 

[Marsu42]

Get all your gear, and all your receipts (I hope you still have them), and you'll be surprised.

I was esp. surprised that almost no orders from overseas contained a correct receipt, they were either declared as "gift" (China) or the €150 value was magically reduced to €20 for EU vat & tax evasion (US order). I didn't ask for this, though I admit it didn't bother me then, but when insuring the gear it'll be a problem. But most likely I'll go the way to only ensure the more expensive items of €100+ and not every lens cap or hood.
[/quote]

 

[Random Orbits]

Get all your gear, and all your receipts (I hope you still have them), and you'll be surprised.

I was esp. surprised that almost no orders from overseas contained a correct receipt, they were either declared as "gift" (China) or the €150 value was magically reduced to €20 for EU vat & tax evasion (US order). I didn't ask for this, though I admit it didn't bother me then, but when insuring the gear it'll be a problem. But most likely I'll go the way to only ensure the more expensive items of €100+ and not every lens cap or hood.

Depends on the company. My insurance company just asked for a list of equipment and current price quotes. I bought some equipment new, but most of it is used. However, all of it is insured for replacement value, so I got that info from the Adorama site. I didn't cover the filters, bags, tripod, etc, even though the value of those things add up as well. The insurance value threshold is a personal preference. If I were to lost everything, it'd cost a bit to replace but certainly would cost a lot more without insurance.

 

[Marsu42]

Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually loose something and the company has to replace it? Do say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract? Sorry if this sounds silly or naive, but I really have no experience with insurances at all.

 

[dr croubie]

Wow, what a good rainy-day exercise (or in my case, it's 37C outside today so i'm indoors with the aircon on full blast).
Added in all my purchases from this year to my spreadsheet, put in some proportional weighting factors for things i'd bought all at once with combined shipping, converted the whole lot to $AU using today's exchange rates (which isn't exactly fair, some rates have changed 15% since I bought the stuff, oh well).
And the total cost of my gear is $19,867.
Sum total of everything $236.91 and over is almost the same as the sum total of everything $236.90 and under, that's my "halfway point" of value.

There's some more scary numbers in there, like everything that's cost me $20 or less including shipping, so really low-value items that I wouldn't even think twice about buying, have still cost me $755 added together. Even things under $50 that I seem to buy without thinking have cost me $3000 in total over the past few years.

So yeah, how do I insure that? Currently my home+contents policy gives me $5000 of 'accidental damage and theft outside of home', ie if someone steals my backpack or i drop it off a cliff. And my policy also gives me 'up to $10k of camera equipment', which i'm definitely well over, so I've got $15k of regular 'contents' specified damages, ie if someone breaks in and/or sets fire to my house. Is it worth updating to include the last $5k? That only includes stuff that cost me $85 or less per piece. The chances of losing absolutely everything are pretty low (especially in a double-brick house with only a wooden roof to burn).
Sigh, too complicated, I think i'm going to leave it at $15k to save on premiums and go shoot some pictures instead.

Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually lose something and the company has to replace it? Do they say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract?

I'm not sure about genuine "losing something" whether they take your word for it. But for theft you definitely need a police report, like when I was backpacking and someone pilfered my P&S from my pocket at a pub (ok, it may have fell out, but for insurance purposes it was stolen), and I had to fill in a proper police report in German (thankfully I eventually found the only cop who spole decent english in Salzburg). That was Travel Insurance (don't leave home without it), so I'm not sure what would happen to premiums if I claimed on my home+contents, hopefully I never have to find out.

 

[barracuda]

I have a State Farm personal articles policy that covers most of my camera gear at full replacement cost. At first I covered everything, memory cards, batteries, etc. but then realized that I would never make a claim for the small things if I happened to lose them. When my agent told me that her brother had a similar policy and that State Farm cancelled his policy when he made too many loss claims, I decided to only insure items costing over $300.

I've had the policy for about 5 years now and have only made one claim for a broken 580EX that I dropped. They basically paid for a new 580EXII. When I made the claim, they asked if I had gotten an estimate to repair it, which I did. Canon's estimate was a minimum of $150, so State Farm just sent me a check for what I originally paid for the 580EX. I later got the flash repaired for $150 and have kept it since I could always use another flash with 5 camera bodies.

As my collection of camera gear has grown, my annual insurance cost has doubled from around $150 to $300 per year. Is it worth it? I think so. Although I've only had one loss, I gain peace of mind and feel that I don't have to baby my equipment (although I am careful with it). I also know that if I'm ever in a situation where I'm in a confrontation with someone for my camera gear, I'd just hand it over knowing that I'd get brand new updated versions of my equipment without a problem. I would however, kindly ask for the memory cards. How ironic, in that that's one of the things I don't insure.

 

[7enderbender]

Good question. I have to admit that I still don't have insurance. I simply haven't found any insurance company yet with reasonable rates. I live in Massachusetts and the regulated market here leads to a lot of insurance companies not doing business here. So all the great and cheap plans such as the one through State Farm are simply not available here. Tagging my stuff to my home insurance is a problem as well since I'd never be able to claim anything really without risking the rates for my house that is close to the coast and almost nobody offers insurance for houses here (and being forced to buy insurance from the state is very costly).
Still thinking about joining one of the professional photography organizations and buy insurance through them. But that's not cheap either. I'll have to see how much income actually comes in from photography over the next few months and then see.

 

[Zv]

Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually loose something and the company has to replace it? Do say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract? Sorry if this sounds silly or naive, but I really have no experience with insurances at all.

Insurance companies used to ask you to report the loss to the police incase it's ever found and handed in. The police gave you a ref no. or a loss report number to give the insurance company along with details of the loss. However, since the advent of mobile phones, the police were getting too many calls about lost phones that they got a bit fed up and sometimes refused to issue a loss report. This was back when I worked for O2 in the UK (5 yrs ago).

Dunno about cameras, but check with the insurer and read the terms and conditions very carefully. The bastards hide stipulations in there then when it comes to claiming they repudiate the claim and refer to you to said terms and conditions.

Sometimes you have to specify high value items like a DSLR and lens in the policy for an additional premium. This is actually a good idea otherwise you won't get the full value of the item back, just a limited sum.

And then theres the excess.

Seriously unless you are juggling lenses for a living I'd say insurance is a waste of money. Risk is always present no matter what we do. It's part of life. Insurance is like gambling. I bet so much that I will screw up. Ummm of course you will!!! Why pay for that! Buy new gear if and when jt breaks (rare). Or get it repaired. Or upgrade. Or cut your losses and pack it up and go home!

 

[rolsskk]

I just want to footstomp something for everyone here with regards to insurance - just because your company says it's "insured" does not mean it'll be covered! I say this because there are obvious limitations for policies such as homeowner/renter and auto polices where they'll be cover IF your gear is stolen FROM those locations. That being said, you typically need a Valuable Personal Property rider on your homeowner/renter's policy, where you specifically identify each and every item, by serial number (if applicable), for coverage in between the house and the car, as well as piece of mind. Aside from the information that I've provided the insurance company, I've got a PDF that has all of the pertinent information and pictures of the insured items, just in case.

Although I checked many places, I have not found anyone providing insurance for camera gear in Qatar ... does anyone here in Canon rumours know of any company providing insurance in Qatar?

Just curious if you're a US Ex-pat there, if so, try a US based insurance company? Some will provide international coverage.

All of our camera gear is insured by State Farm, but oddly enough, they would not cover my Ipad 4. Apparently that item represents a higher risk than a 5d3!

You need to make sure you ask how and what policy it would be covered under.

 

[DCM1024]

All of our camera gear is insured by State Farm, but oddly enough, they would not cover my Ipad 4. Apparently that item represents a higher risk than a 5d3!

You need to make sure you ask how and what policy it would be covered under.
[/quote]

The policy is not in my name. I was told by the policy holder that State Farm would not insure under either the homeowner or extended electronics policies.

 

[samkatz]

Here in the USA, get a rider on your homeowners where you itemize all your equipment, including your laptop. Make sure the rider covers "all losses"...eg, gets stolen out of your car... It won't be the cheapest insurance, but certainly gives you peace of mind. You don't travel around w/your TV or home equipment but you want to be free from worry when you travel w/your cameras. I dropped a Canon and lens in a river once, and they paid w/no problem.

 

[Botts]

Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually loose something and the company has to replace it? Do say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract? Sorry if this sounds silly or naive, but I really have no experience with insurances at all.

My insurance company (home insurance as I'm not a pro) told me that if I'm in the USA or Canada, they'd like a police report stating the loss, but if I'm in Mexico, or a country that the police will hassle me in, they'd rather I not take the risk of reporting it.

My home insurance also didn't require an itemized list, just the ability to prove what I had in the event of loss. So I keep a copy of the receipts for all my gear in a folder in a safe, and a PDF copy of all receipts on my laptop, and in the cloud with DropBox.

I believe this is partially because my insurance plan also covers "mysterious disappearance" without exclusion.

 

[tapanit]

Starting as of today I somehow feel that not insuring the stuff but carrying around the greater part of it most of the time is not exactly clever, on the other hand my budget is stretched as it is so I'm wondering if other people insure their "midrange" dslr gear against theft & damage or they consider the real world risk too low to pay for the insurance?

I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.

Insurance makes financial sense only if there are secondary considerations, i.e., if the insurance money you'd get would in the event be worth more to you than the actual amount you get. Travel insurance makes sense because in some places not having one might mean you won't be admitted to a hospital (or get the emergency helicopter ride or whatever). Insuring your house makes sense if a fire could otherwise drive you bankrupt. But it never pays to insure cheap stuff.

As far as photo gear is concerned, if you're a professional, making your living out of photography, insurance can mean you can replace the gear faster and thus lose less work opportunities, and then it might pay off. Especially if the insurance is tax-deductible.

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

Of course there again may be side-effects besides money. Maybe you know your wife wouldn't let you take a loan to replace the lens but would let you use the insurance money for it. Then insurance might again make sense.

Otherwise, you are paying for not having to do the math and for feeling a little less uncertain about the future. Maybe that feeling is worth the money to you. But it will cost you money, not save it.

 

[Zv]

Starting as of today I somehow feel that not insuring the stuff but carrying around the greater part of it most of the time is not exactly clever, on the other hand my budget is stretched as it is so I'm wondering if other people insure their "midrange" dslr gear against theft & damage or they consider the real world risk too low to pay for the insurance?

I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.

Insurance makes financial sense only if there are secondary considerations, i.e., if the insurance money you'd get would in the event be worth more to you than the actual amount you get. Travel insurance makes sense because in some places not having one might mean you won't be admitted to a hospital (or get the emergency helicopter ride or whatever). Insuring your house makes sense if a fire could otherwise drive you bankrupt. But it never pays to insure cheap stuff.

As far as photo gear is concerned, if you're a professional, making your living out of photography, insurance can mean you can replace the gear faster and thus lose less work opportunities, and then it might pay off. Especially if the insurance is tax-deductible.

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

Of course there again may be side-effects besides money. Maybe you know your wife wouldn't let you take a loan to replace the lens but would let you use the insurance money for it. Then insurance might again make sense.

Otherwise, you are paying for not having to do the math and for feeling a little less uncertain about the future. Maybe that feeling is worth the money to you. But it will cost you money, not save it.

+1 and as someone who worked for an insurance company I can concur. Amount paid out in claims is a pittance compared to what they make. What does that tell you?

 

[Marsu42]

+1 and as someone who worked for an insurance company I can concur. Amount paid out in claims is a pittance compared to what they make. What does that tell you?

I don't think it's quite as simple, and nobody confuses insurance companies with charity, that's why I never had me as a customer. But I know there are legit cases, and I would be one: If I loose my €8000 gear, I cannot replace it because I simply don't have the money. Money I don't have doesn't pay me interest in the bank. So for risks that are too great to cope with on my own (same thing: health care) I consider insurance a good idea, even though it's basically another means of transferring wealth from "have nots" to "haves" because as written above if you've got enough money insurance might be considered a waste of it except if you want to pay for a subjective "peace of mind".

The chances of losing absolutely everything are pretty low (especially in a double-brick house with only a wooden roof to burn).

My "problem" is that I am very well able to carry 100% of my gear around, and often I do, it's (or will be) "only" 2 camera bodies + 4 lenses + the usual flash-filter stuff. And it's all conveniently packed into one bag, though I try to make it look as cheap as possible from the outside...

.. .and fortunately, in Germany there seem to be ok companies like the one menitoned above that is specialized in dslr equipment so figuring out what the terms are should be possible even for non-lawyers like me. The rates are reasonable or to be expected, I guess:

0€ co-payment: 3.25% of gear value
100€ co-payment: 2.5% of gear value
250€ co-payment: 2.0% of gear value
1000€ co-payment: 1.6% of gear value

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

Another question since I stayed clear of insurances so far: What happens if I actually loose something and the company has to replace it? Do say "No problem, no need for proof it was really stolen or it's a fraud attempt, here's your (insert value here) and have fun with it"? Does the insurance rate rise afterwards or (when) do they cancel the contract? Sorry if this sounds silly or naive, but I really have no experience with insurances at all.

In Israel the insurance company would like proof the equipment existed in the first place (read: the assessor has seen it when he came when the insurance was made, or a receipt for the purchase of the item was sent to them), though some items of small value were value in lump without being itemized.

Also, a complaint should be filed with the police, though when it comes to property damages, this means very little. A few years back I reported my house was broken into and some property stolen. The police officer signed my copy of the report, didn't keep a copy, and when I asked her whether someone is going to come around and take fingerprints off the window, she said I've seen too many police shows on TV. As newspapers report, this is typical - the police don't have enough man power to investigate, and keeping copies would make for bad stats (lots of unsolved crimes).

There's a clause saying if the stolen equipement is found, it becomes the insurance company's property. As the assessor didn't write down the equipment's serial numbers (just model, e.g. "Canon EF 50mm f/1.4"), I'm not sure they could enforce it.

Insurance rate would be higher, though. E.g. there's a discount for not having sued the insurance company.

 

[Zv]

+1 and as someone who worked for an insurance company I can concur. Amount paid out in claims is a pittance compared to what they make. What does that tell you?

I don't think it's quite as simple, and nobody confuses insurance companies with charity, that's why I never had me as a customer. But I know there are legit cases, and I would be one: If I loose my €8000 gear, I cannot replace it because I simply don't have the money. Money I don't have doesn't pay me interest in the bank. So for risks that are too great to cope with on my own (same thing: health care) I consider insurance a good idea, even though it's basically another means of transferring wealth from "have nots" to "haves" because as written above if you've got enough money insurance might be considered a waste of it except if you want to pay for a subjective "peace of mind".

The chances of losing absolutely everything are pretty low (especially in a double-brick house with only a wooden roof to burn).

My "problem" is that I am very well able to carry 100% of my gear around, and often I do, it's (or will be) "only" 2 camera bodies + 4 lenses + the usual flash-filter stuff. And it's all conveniently packed into one bag, though I try to make it look as cheap as possible from the outside...

.. .and fortunately, in Germany there seem to be ok companies like the one menitoned above that is specialized in dslr equipment so figuring out what the terms are should be possible even for non-lawyers like me. The rates are reasonable or to be expected, I guess:

0€ co-payment: 3.25% of gear value
100€ co-payment: 2.5% of gear value
250€ co-payment: 2.0% of gear value
1000€ co-payment: 1.6% of gear value

Is there a reason you always carry all your gear? I only every take everything if I am moving to another country. Otherwise I select the bare minimum gear I need and stick it in one small backpack. Usually one body one lens one speedlight is my go bag. Kinda like limiting myself, makes for creative thinking!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.
Recently someone stole my 24-40 f/2.9 L II lens, unfortunately I had no insurance (insurance for camera gear, does not exist in this coountry) and I cannot buy the 24-70 L II again ... but if I had insurance, paying that $50 would have made helluva lot of sense.

 

[Zv]

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.
Recently someone stole my 24-40 f/2.9 L II lens, unfortunately I had no insurance (insurance for camera gear, does not exist in this coountry) and I cannot buy the 24-70 L II again ... but if I had insurance, paying that $50 would have made helluva lot of sense.

50 bucks a year? What insurance company is this? I just went online and got a quote for $600 a year. And thats not pro cover. That would be the cost of a small lens every year! Pretty sure I could afford NOT to pay that!

 

[Marsu42]

Is there a reason you always carry all your gear?

Um, because I don't know what I'll shoot through the day and want to have all focal ranges covered (macro, uwa, standard and tele)? If sticking to one lens and flash works for you it's great, but I guess most people buy their gear not to admire or select at home but to change lenses from time to time - and I bought my lenses like the 70-300L because I am still able to take them with me unlike other larger and heavier versions like the 70-200L.

50 bucks a year? What insurance company is this? I just went online and got a quote for $600 a year. And thats not pro cover. That would be the cost of a small lens every year! Pretty sure I could afford NOT to pay that!

I just wrote the rates at least from a standard insurance in Germany in a post above - but the offers seem to vary between countries a lot.