Deductibles work on the principle of reducing loss costs for the insurer. From their perspective, someone with a low deductible is someone who is not willing or capable of absorbing a small loss. You do not want an insurer to think you are a bad risk.
For example, suppose you are a pro with a 1Ds3, 1D4, 5D2, and about $15k in lenses. You insure with a $500 deductible. The insurer thinks this makes sense because the amount of insurance is high, and presumably the level of your gear reflects an income-earning potential that indicates you should be able to eat losses below $500. For you, the purpose of the coverage is to take care of, say, losses in the several thousands of dollars due to theft or catastrophic events. It is not for you to be able to file a claim for $200 when the AF breaks on your EF 400/2.8L IS and you send it in via CPS to have it replaced.
At that level it makes no financial sense to purchase a $0 deductible policy. If you could afford to buy all that top-notch gear, you could afford to absorb more than $0 of loss. The insurer knows this, so it becomes suspicious if you get such coverage. Even disregarding the underwriting flag, you automatically get priced in a higher risk class and the premium reflects this fact.
On the other hand, say you are just starting out and all you have is a 50D + EF 85/1.8. You would be completely stupid to buy a $500 deductible policy on such a relatively small amount of property to insure. A $0 deductible policy may work best if you can afford the premium, but because the replacement cost is relatively low, you may be better off self-insuring (i.e., saving money in the bank). This is why insurance plans for mobile phones are usually not worthwhile--the replacement cost is typically at most several hundred dollars, and if you are a reasonably responsible person, you are unlikely to suffer a loss before the contract term expires or you wish to upgrade to a new handset.
In broad terms, for electronic goods, insurance really only makes sense for very high value items, and for cases where the claim size is the full replacement cost.
Due to the level of semantics just posted, I actually pulled my policy and reread it. I have $23K worth of camera equipment (only camera equipment), plus $$$$ jewelry, and $$$$ "other stuff" on my valuables policy. I pay $16.70/monthly, with a zero deductible for all of that.
Who said anything about making numerous small claims? That keeps getting mentioned here, and if it does, then I hope that the people who are making those comments don't get insurance just for that. HOWEVER, in a situation where my equipment is damaged, stolen, etc. due to no fault of mine, my insurance gives me a piece of mind. If I dropped my CF card in a park, no, I'm not making a claim. If I turn around and find my bag has been slashed and all 10 of my cards for that day is missing, I'm making a claim.
I do not know if my insurance is competitively priced high or low, because I am loyal to the company. I don't even know if I could have gotten a lower premium with a higher deductible. All I know is I travel extensively, and I move a lot, and my job keeps me on my toes. I'm satisfied with what I have. And it's all about individual value, right?
The situation the OP stated would have been a little less painful with a zero deductible. Fact.
We have a hard time believing that $17/month is legit. No one we know offers this for this low of a price. Who you with and are they legit? File a $10K claim and see if you get paid. Talk about no peace of mind
We have a hard time believing that $17/month is legit. No one we know offers this for this low of a price. Who you with and are they legit? File a $10K claim and see if you get paid. Talk about no peace of mind
+1 to a BS call.
Flew back on US Air and had two prop planes again also was an idiot and decided to book bulkhead seats on the way back. Bulkhead = no foot level storage. Thankfully we had 8 people on both flights so I stowed it in another row.
I'm with the others, $0 deductible policies are foolish. The insurance company always makes money, so paying them the least amount to cover catastrophic loss makes the most sense, unless personal circumstances dictate another path for some other reason (i.e. you work in an area with very frequent theft, etc).
Sounds like you might have your gear covered on a home policy over a separate rider (writer?) for professional gear.
The catch is that if you make money with any of your gear in any sort of professional way and it's not on a specific kind of policy, they can drop you when you need them the most.
My wife and I had apartment coverage for several thousand dollars worth of stuff, and our premium was cheap like that.
I'm not being cynical, but I would advise calling your insurance company and making sure they know you are using the camera gear professionally. That could change things.
I hope this helps.
And as far as the OP goes, it only cost him $500 out of pocket to have all his stuff checked out and fixed by canon. Luckily the incident happened on his way home from a shoot. That could have been messy otherwise.
JazzyMac wrote:
Due to the level of semantics just posted, I actually pulled my policy and reread it. I have $23K worth of camera equipment (only camera equipment), plus $$$$ jewelry, and $$$$ "other stuff" on my valuables policy. I pay $16.70/monthly, with a zero deductible for all of that.
Just out of curiosity, where does your business liability and business medical payments coverage fit in? How about your Errors & Omissions?
Wow, "we"?? "No one we know" I'm sorry my insurance company didn't contact you prior to giving my policy. You will be absolutely floored when you see my home insurance and car insurance that I just checked on behalf of this thread.
I didn't realize I had it so good actually.
To the comment about the rider. I have that too, it's where all my computer equipment (and ipods) are covered. My rider has a $100 deductible and not that high a coverage parameter. This insurance is separate. I've been thinking about shifting items over from one to the other, but blah blah, not part of this thread.
To the other inquiry about business stuff, etc. That's got nothing to do with this thread either, but I'm covered pretty extensively there also. One thing I believe in is insurance. Since my "business" doesn't span so huge, I haven't worried about getting technical. But I guess I need to.
I remember when I first started shooting professionally and called up State Farm to ask about insuring my gear. They, along with the half-dozen other insurance agents I called, quoted me roughly $175 - $225/year for the $15k or so in gear that I had at the time. It was all tied to my homeowners and auto rates too, and like yours Jazzy, was quoted as a special policy with a zero deductible. It sounded really, really awesome.
Of course, when they finally asked if I was shooting for profit or for business purposes and I said yes, they said they would not be able to insure me under that policy. Even my best friend who runs an Allstate agency couldn't get around it...he said if you file a major claim they will likely find out you have been operating as a business, and will NOT pay the claim.
The point is, there are reasons that professional associations like PPA and WPPI partner with insurance agencies like Tom C Pickard, Marsh, Wells Fargo, etc...for policies specific to photographers. If the policy you have sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
@Matt B. What does any of this have to do with OP and his lack of adequate insurance or a lower deductible?
Not to veer the thread, but businesses, coverage, etc. is kind of stretching it. I already said I haven't been super technical with my business coverage, but I do have it. I have a full time job; the way I run photography, and "photography business" may not be super extensive, but I know I'm covered if an airline craps on my equipment.
JazzyMac wrote:
@Matt B. What does any of this have to do with OP and his lack of adequate insurance or a lower deductible?
Not to veer the thread, but businesses, coverage, etc. is kind of stretching it. I already said I haven't been super technical with my business coverage, but I do have it. I have a full time job; the way I run photography, and "photography business" may not be super extensive, but I know I'm covered if an airline craps on my equipment.
Maybe it's me, but you are making little sense.
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the OP, but you felt compelled to bring up the insurance topic yesterday when you said "better insurance next time...blah blah...zero deductible..blah blah."
Remember?
In the 24 hours or so since, you have ignored several valid points as to why your stated policy is NOT ideal for photographers, and is probably illegitimate to begin with. You have also failed to grasp that the OP's current insurance is MORE than adequate in both coverage and deductible.
I also find it funny that you can look up pretty quickly and tell me to the penny how much you pay per month to insure your gear, but when it comes to your liability or E&O you "don't want to get too technical."
Sounds like it's on a personal account Jazzy, but again, I don't have your policy in front of me nor have I spoke with your agent.
I pay around $650 a year, through State Farm, for business insurance. It covers liability, medical and E&O, and a whole butload of equipment (wherever it may be in the entire world). Even if I throw it off a cliff, it's covered. But, having a $0 deductible is not a smart thing like others have suggested, it's a red flag and an easy crutch to lean on if needed. If I have $25k gear I'm taking out in the field, a $500 deductible is nothing.
In regards to the OP, I wouldn't file a claim with my insurance even if I had a $100 deductible . . . it's $500, not a big deal, and he shouldn't have paid for it, that's the point of this thread. Not his insurance.
Equipment is one thing, but we aren't talking businesses, right? That's the thing. For me, right now, I am covered in the case an airline damages my equipment and that's all I need.
Geez, didn't realize this was a "how much is your home, car, business, family, spousal, health, life" insurance thread.
OP complained about the deductible versus the cost of repairs. I chimed in with, "Yes, I have a zero deductible". Someone said they didn't believe it, but I double checked and yes it's true.
Just for the sake of not gearing this thread off topic into a coverage/insurance thread, how about you pm me? (not)
@sboerup, I guess my point is, the only people who is as concerned with your personal equipment and property is YOU. Not an airline, your customers, your neighbors, and even some family members.
Just curious Jazzy, have you ever had to file a claim? I'm quite curious as to how you are getting great insurance for $17/mo because I would be interested in knowing as well
JazzyMac wrote:
Equipment is one thing, but we aren't talking businesses, right?
Stop right there. What do you mean we aren't talking about businesses? The ONLY thing we are talking about is business...as in "business insurance." If you are insuring business assets under the veil of a personal homeowners policy (which can be done for little cost and zero deductible), you are putting yourself at a pretty high level of risk should you encounter a major problem.
Geez, didn't realize this was a "how much is your home, car, business, family, spousal, health, life" insurance thread.
As far as I can remember, nobody asked you to state any kind of values for any of these items. For me personally, I just asked where these necessary and important insurance policies fit into your business? When you were telling Sam to change his insurance, did you ever consider that it's likely his coverage (and $500 deductible) includes MORE than just gear? Did you consider that it's really not worth the risk to insure his gear on a personal policy like the one you have?
OP complained about the deductible versus the cost of repairs. I chimed in with, "Yes, I have a zero deductible". Someone said they didn't believe it, but I double checked and yes it's true.
I don't think anybody really questioned your zero deductible or low premium, what they questioned was whether or not the policy is actually valid given your use of "insured gear" for business purposes? You don't seem to know the answer to this.
Having insurance and thinking you have insurance can be two separate things. Out of curiosity, if you were at a wedding and had several lenses stolen and had to file a claim (and likely provide a police report), how would you answer the question of whether or not you were were for business purposes?
I can't believe I'm getting pulled into this, but just for fun's sake, this will be my last post concerning *that* topic. Continue to reply if you want.
My "business" coverage is basic. As in, "yo, I'm out making money, if someone gets hurt on my time, I need to be covered". Insurance company: Okay, Jazzy, here's your bill. I'm covered under an LLC, with millions and millions of dollars that I won't ever see (that's an exaggeration for the idiots). I still haven't read that policy thoroughly.
As it stands, my equipment, technical, "in the weeds" hasn't been truly figured out to be in my best interest. All this time, I was concerned with someone else getting hurt during my small business attempt. If I'm traveling with my equipment, one can say that business/pleasure lines are pretty gray as I do both quite extensively and can usually produce more proof of my pleasure photos rather than business photos.
The extreme thought going into my specific policies per event, and isolated case is what I didn't want to go into...since I haven't even gone into it myself. Since my day job covers me quite extensively, I just wanted to make sure I didn't get hit with a huge hospital bill if someone tripped on my sidewalk on the way to take a photo.
I just KNOW, that if an airline screws up my equipment, I'M COVERED--zero deductible!
Oh and the question of if my equipment got stolen at a wedding. Wouldn't happen, since I'm safe with my stuff (always with me no matter what or in the car, locked). But your question would be like saying, if a teenage babysitter needed insurance, how would she be covered if she didn't have business insurance?
Matt B. wrote:
Maybe it's me, but you are making little sense.
I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the OP, but you felt compelled to bring up the insurance topic yesterday when you said "better insurance next time...blah blah...zero deductible..blah blah."
Remember?
In the 24 hours or so since, you have ignored several valid points as to why your stated policy is NOT ideal for photographers, and is probably illegitimate to begin with. You have also failed to grasp that the OP's current insurance is MORE than adequate in both coverage and deductible.
I also find it funny that you can look up pretty quickly and tell me to the penny how much you pay per month to insure your gear, but when it comes to your liability or E&O you "don't want to get too technical."...Show more →
This is pretty much the best thing I'll read on FM today.
If you are using your photographic equipment in a professional capacity--i.e., it is not merely a hobby but instead you are earning income from it--you cannot get coverage through a personal articles endorsement through your homeowner's policy. ALL insurers are the same about this one rule--personal lines and commercial lines do not mix.
Check your policy contract because I guarantee you there is an exclusion for commercial use of personal articles insured. In the event that you make a claim and the insurer discovers you are earning income through photography, your claim will be denied. And not because they want to screw you over--the reason is very much a legitimate one, which is why they state the exclusion. The reason is that the nature of the risk is vastly different between someone who shoots as a hobby, versus someone who earns income from their gear. Thus it must be priced differently, and covered differently.
Because Sam is obviously earning income through photography, the rate he is paying must take into account the fact that he does regularly board airplanes with a lot of expensive equipment, and take photos of people in a fast-paced environment. His exposure is not only greater as a professional, but the nature of the risk is different--if he or his assistant, for example, is negligent and causes a guest to injure themselves as a result of his business operations, this could not be covered under a personal articles floater.
Therefore it makes no sense to say "I only pay $X with a $0 deductible on $Y amount of gear" when that is not a commercial rate, which is what Sam requires.
Also keep in mind that even if you are not a pro and you just shoot for fun, if you attach a personal articles floater for you camera gear to your homeowner's policy, and you experience a loss, your entire homeowner's policy may have its premium adjusted upon renewal since it is no longer claims-free. Whether this actually happens depends on which insurer you have--some of them rate the endorsements separately, others combine them into the main perils. The last thing you want to do is cause your rate on your $250k home to increase because you filed a $1k claim on a lens you dropped.
How is this not the best thing you read today Jeremy?
Oh and the question of if my equipment got stolen at a wedding. Wouldn't happen, since I'm safe with my stuff (always with me no matter what or in the car, locked). But your question would be like saying, if a teenage babysitter needed insurance, how would she be covered if she didn't have business insurance?
also was an idiot and decided to book bulkhead seats on the way back. Bulkhead = no foot level storage. Thankfully we had 8 people on both flights so I stowed it in another row.
I'm sorry my insurance company didn't contact you prior to giving my policy. You will be absolutely floored when you see my home insurance and car insurance that I just checked on behalf of this thread.