are your cameras insured?

[back alley]

just from reading another thread i started to wonder if insurance is something that most people carry on their gear.

 

[aad]

Part of my homeowners policy, I guess.

 

[NL2377]

I voted no, but come to think of it, my renter's insurance has them covered under that... but as far as theft while I'm away from home... No.

 

[sepiareverb]

I looked into it, but it was insanely expensive, and figured it would be like any other dealings I've had with the insurance company- only for their benefit. Never do seem to pay do they? My last car accident was written up by the police as the other drivers fault which she also admitted on scene, but somehow I ended up having to pay my deductible and not getting anything from them after her company decided she wasn't really at fault for hitting me while looking in the other direction. I'd guess if my equipment was stolen I'd pay my deductible and find out they weren't really stolen, I had simply given them away.
(am I too worked up about this?)

 

[AusDLK]

Not expensive really. I have $25K (or so) or cameras/lenses insured for full replacement value, no deductable, for ~$400/yr.

I recently on scammed on *B** and lost a Zeiss Sonnar to some a-hole. I think that P**p** is going to cover my $828 loss -- but it they don't, my insurance will.

This certainly isn't insanely expensive. In fact, I think (at least for me), it is insane NOT to have this coverage.

Homeowner's provides some coverage but with my deductable, I would have gotten $0 for this potential loss...

 

[mervynyan]

Not expensive really. I have $25K (or so) or cameras/lenses insured for full replacement value, no deductable, for ~$400/yr.

I recently on scammed on *B** and lost a Zeiss Sonnar to some a-hole. I think that P**p** is going to cover my $828 loss -- but it they don't, my insurance will.

This certainly isn't insanely expensive. In fact, I think (at least for me), it is insane NOT to have this coverage.

Homeowner's provides some coverage but with my deductible, I would have gotten $0 for this potential loss...

that's expensive 1.6% per year, can buy a lot of films already. small article insurance is never a good idea. speaking from my professional background, that is a lot of risk premium you are paying. You should be expecting about 50 bps max, unless you intend to scam the insurance company.

first, you should read the fine print of replacement value, small articles replacement value tends to going down over time, even assuming you have 25k all in leica gears and retain most of the value, 400 bucks plus interest earned is what you pay.

second, the probability of losing 25k all at once is very low, so you are paying 400 bucks to cover perhaps 5-7k on daily basis.

third, if you are a professional photographer, your business insurance perhaps already cover thefts. home owner insurance with deductible doesn't even go to such small articles so they just throw in as baits.

forth, etc, etc...

as i said, if you kept losing items on a regular basis, the insurance company will increase the premium or limit the coverage, in which case you may bark and walk away from future coverage, so you lost all the money you already paid.

the best prevention is not being conspicuous in public eye, keep a low profile wherever you go, stay alert if you carry expensive items.

perhaps here is not the right place to discuss over-insured, my recommendation on whether you need to buy insurances is to look at the consequence. if the consequence will not create harm to other people or further financial liabilities on you, that I'd skip it. e.g. lost some small articles.

then again, insurance companies make money this way because people like you who tend to over-insured everything, and people like me who pay too much of insurance to hedge other things. well, we can't win😀 :bang:

 

[HuubL]

Yes, but only for my DSLR + lenses.

 

[jmi]

No, but I'm starting to think it might be time to do it... I know a guy who had all of his equipment stolen out of the car in a supermarket car park last week, and the extra cover he took out on his gear with the homeowners insurance wouldn't pay up, and the car insurance wouldn't have anything to do with it either. Expensive dSLR, lenses, ....

 

[Pherdinand]

they are too cheap...

 

[Avotius]

Insurance is a joke, the chances of getting compensated is the same as getting the mail showing up here in china.

 

[wlewisiii]

No, as when I asked my agent, my gear is covered under our homeowners without needing anything extra. There is a $500 deductable, but it covers theft from _anywhere_ in the world (on vacation, for ex, or left in the car), so I find that acceptable. If I wanted a lower deductable, we could pay more but for practical purposes (my go bag gets snagged), it would still be enough to get me another body & a several lenses replaced.

William

 

[wlewisiii]

Insurance is a joke, the chances of getting compensated is the same as getting the mail showing up here in china.

Perhaps it has been for you, but it's not a big hassle to file a claim & get a check from the companies I've done business with (USPO excepted ... :bang: :bang: :bang: ). My rates may go up later, but that's a separate issue.

William

 

[AusDLK]

>insurance companies make money this way because people like you
>who tend to over-insured everything

Not to be overly rude -- but piss up a rope.

Your "analysis" is absurd and your implication that I may defraud the insurance company is insulting.

(BTW, my insurance company is State Farm.)

 

[dseelig]

Insurance

Insurance

I use the Hartford. Three years a go I got hit at an NFl game causing 1500 dolars in camera damage . I ahd a ce4hck in 10 days of getting them my repair estimates. lat year I had alightng strike and fried a computer . The Hartford bought me a brand new computer no deductible at all because of there floater on my computer equip. I have had no raises in rates. Oh they paid off in a week of getting my recipt for my new computer.

 

[pvdhaar]

I've a rule of thumb; if the risk involved is less than a net monthly income, I don't insure.

The insurance fees for (relatively) cheap items are hyperbolic because of the enormous amounts of fraudulous claims for loss or damage. When more money is involved, (the car, the house) fees are more reasonable as the insurance companies make more work of guarding against fraud and misuse.

 

[proenca]

well, i had expensive DSLRS in the past ( D2x, D2x, 1Ds ) and then when I wen to the film route (MF and then M7 ) I was never insured. Never crossed my mind.

Until the day I got home and see my lenses and M7 stolen. Bought a MP now and a 50'lux and the thing I did the same day was camera insurance. Insured 5000 pounds of equiment for 140 pounds per year... 12 pounds per month. Its costs nothing and can save you from real trouble ( like the one Im having trying to cope with car payments, plus trying to repay CC that has a MP and lux and bags of film and processing )

Well worth it . I know take my camera litereally everywhere : if it breaks, get stolen, I have insurance. I dont treat it carelessly , far from that. But I feel more confortable.

 

[gregg]

I added a "rider" to my home insurance policy for only a few extra dollars a month. They ask for an annual inventory of photographic items and make adjustments to the replacement cost and premium as needed - never more than a dollar or two either direction...

 

[sepiareverb]

I added a "rider" to my home insurance policy for only a few extra dollars a month. They ask for an annual inventory of photographic items and make adjustments to the replacement cost and premium as needed - never more than a dollar or two either direction...

Gregg- May I ask who you use? Mine was aghast that I would actually take the equipment out of the house and wanted to charge me many hundreds of dollars extra for the privilege. Was going to be about $700 - $800 per year- with a $1K deductible.