Once again there are posts encouraging the use of homeowners insurance to protect camera equipment against damage or loss. Homeowners insurance is vital to protect your home and possessions from catastrophic loss and also some serious liability issues. You need homeowners insurance before you can get a loan to buy or refi a home.
After just a few claims your homeowners insurance can become very costly or virtually unobtainable. A checkered loss history can affect the liquidity and value of your home. So if you must insure your cameras it makes sense to get seperate insurance.
Even so you don't want to have a lot of claims because you will be cancelled. So why not implement the loss prevention measures you eventually must use with insurance first? Remember that insurance is vital to protect against losses that you can't sustain.There are also deductables and many agents will advisde you not to report the smaller claims which would recover only a small part of the loss after a decductable.
In most every case self insurance is the best economic expedient for losses that you can cover. Again, your insurance dollars are best spent on protection against substantial losses. Most people would have more significant protection by purchasing or increasing a liability umbrella with the insurance premiums that would have gone for camera insurance.
Jul 03, 2012 at 08:41 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I agree for the more active person that covering camera equipment on the homeowners policy is not advisable, a sep[erate stand-alone policy is best.
For the less active person with a very expensive camera (but who can live with a $500 or $1000 deductible) then using a personal property rider on the homeowners to cover the larger more expnsive pieces of equipment makes a lot of sense.
I totally disagree with you that self insurance makes sense and is more economical. I have approximately $15000 in photography equipment that I use often and in public places (high chance of theft or significant breakage). It costs me $200 a year on a stand-alone personal property policy to cover this in full. At that rate it would take 75 years of saving $200 to make up for the total loss of my kit which could occur every time I'm out. Insurance, for me, makes total sense and is far more economical.
It all boils down to the probability of loss and the amount of loss. For instace:
Probability high and loss high ==> stand alone policy
Probability low and loss high ==> personal property rider on the homeowners
Loss low (i.e. < $2000 total) ==> self insure regardless of the probability
Finally, rates vary by state. In Maine, I had less value in equipment and stand-alone rates were high, so I used a rider on the homeowners. In NY, I have far more value in equipment today and rates on a stand-alone policy are low ... combind that with my risk of loss being higher and it makes sense for me to have a stand-alone policy.
I have a standalone policy with State Farms... personal articles policy with zero deductible. The annual rates are very reasonable, so give an agent in your area a call.
Standalone policy through Hill & Usher, underwritten by Philadelphia Insurance....covers all my gear, computers, etc...i got a $500 deductible, b/c i really only plan on using it incase everything gets firebombed, or stolen....i've got plenty of backups, so the insurance is only really for the worst case scenario....and the policy also includes $1,000,000 liability, as well as other stuff....it's a good policy....
Zebrabot wrote:
insurance companies, like casinos are not you friends. Your interests are secondary at most to them.
Nor is any company you purchase a product or service from. They do however serve the function of helping manage risk and that is the service you are buying.
AMaji wrote:
I have a standalone policy with State Farms... personal articles policy with zero deductible. The annual rates are very reasonable, so give an agent in your area a call.
Good luck.
I have the same setup. $80 annually for $10K of coverage, all-risk zero deductible.
My agent also shoots so I'm sure if/when I need the coverage, I shouldn't have any issues.
Jul 03, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
gdsf2 wrote:
Nor is any company you purchase a product or service from. They do however serve the function of helping manage risk and that is the service you are buying.
Well said Jerry.
Insurance companies, like all companies, are in it to make money. So is your doctor, and the hospital, and <fill in the blank>. I bet you do what you do to make money too!It's called economics!
Insurance companies, like all companies, are in it to make money. So is your doctor, and the hospital, and <fill in the blank>. I bet you do what you do to make money too!It's called economics!
My job is not to look for technicalities to dick people over, it's to help people with any reasonable request. Going out of my way to help a customer won't get my fired where I work.
Jul 03, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Zebrabot wrote:
My job is not to look for technicalities to dick people over, it's to help people with any reasonable request. Going out of my way to help a customer won't get my fired where I work.
And from what I have seen, it's not what insurance companies are trying to do either. Some are good and some are bad, just like people.
Maybe you need to look for a new insurance agent Zebrabot. I've been with the same one for 15 years for home and auto and have absolutely no complaints. In the few cases I've needed to make a claim they've handled everything perfectly. Of course, if you're making bogus or repetitive claims they're going to have questions.
coracii wrote:
Maybe you need to look for a new insurance agent Zebrabot. I've been with the same one for 15 years for home and auto and have absolutely no complaints. In the few cases I've needed to make a claim they've handled everything perfectly. Of course, if you're making bogus or repetitive claims they're going to have questions.
Is it ok if I torch your home, then flood it to see if you still have no complaints?
I have a separate policy from State Farm to cover my camera equipment. It is around $ 53/ year to cover $ 5500 +- of coverage. This is zero deductible with even dropping the camera covered. I get a 10% discount for having other policies with them.
Zebrabot wrote:
Is it ok if I torch your home, then flood it to see if you still have no complaints?
Go ahead, they sure had no issue covering every penny of the damage done by the four hurricanes that hit our house in 2004. It seems like a long stint in prison would suit you well and my insurance would cover both of your crimes if necessary. But since you'd be admitting to the crimes I'm betting the civil case against everything you currently own and anything you may own in the future would help to cover my losses as well. Hope you like an 8 x 10 cell and a new roommate to share your bunk bed with on those long, cold nights.
I thought FM was about photography ...... If you don't want insurance for yourself fine, go ahead, just don't tell me I shouldn't buy it, that has nothing to do with taking pictures. As for umbrellas, I am certain that smashing your D999 on a rock in ArchesNP will not be covered, umbrella is liability: protection, not object replacement. Another State Farm gear policy here, although I had to help out the agent a bit since she had never done one of those. Needed only serial numbers, and pictures if any gear did not have a serial number. It also was helpful to have a reference replacment cost for each item, I used KEH catalog for most. Took about 2 weeks to get set up.
i'd never use an umbrella policy to insure my stuff....granted, $50 a year is cheaper than the $500 a year i pay for all my gear, but that includes liability, which i gotta have anyway......i just feel a little more comfortable that my insurance company SPECIALIZES in photographic and motion picture insurance...i wouldn't wanna find out how long it takes to get paid out from a non commercial insurance company when you make a claim...
coracii wrote:
Go ahead, they sure had no issue covering every penny of the damage done by the four hurricanes that hit our house in 2004. It seems like a long stint in prison would suit you well and my insurance would cover both of your crimes if necessary. But since you'd be admitting to the crimes I'm betting the civil case against everything you currently own and anything you may own in the future would help to cover my losses as well. Hope you like an 8 x 10 cell and a new roommate to share your bunk bed with on those long, cold nights. ...Show more →
yes, I am admitting to the crimes. I sent the hurricane to your house in 2004.
NathanHamler wrote:
i'd never use an umbrella policy to insure my stuff....granted, $50 a year is cheaper than the $500 a year i pay for all my gear, but that includes liability, which i gotta have anyway......i just feel a little more comfortable that my insurance company SPECIALIZES in photographic and motion picture insurance...i wouldn't wanna find out how long it takes to get paid out from a non commercial insurance company when you make a claim...
