camera insurance

[thawkins]

A friend's car was recently broken into. The thieves took from the trrunk a camera bag that contained a Nikon D200, three lens, flash, filters and other assorted photography items. The insurance carrier paid for the repairs to the car and for a coat and golf clubs that were also stolen. However they refused to cover the cost of replacing the photo equipment. They claimed the Nikon and it's accesories are professional equipment and should be covered under a seperate policy. They haven't budged and my friend has hired a lawyer to attempt to get the insurance co. to cover the loss of the photo gear. My question is what sort of coverage should one carry on photo gear. The only expensive camera I have is a Leica M3 with a 50mm summicron DR lens. I do have a number of other RF cameras but non of them can be considered collectible. Should I have seperate coverage on all this stuff? Or some of it? Awaiting your informed replies.

Tom

 

[wgerrard]

That's right. I'm afraid your friend is probably fighting a losing battle.

For your cameras, call your insurance comany or agent and ask. Typically, you will need to add a rider to your homeowner's or renter's policy covering that hardware. Keep receipts, bills of sale, and photos of your stuff to make it easier to make a claim. Be sure to store those records somewhere outside your home.

Same scenario may well apply to other expensive toys like computers, audio hardware, etc.

 

[Dogman]

An insurance rider to rernter's or homeowner's insurance is a good idea and it's usually reasonably priced. Years ago, I had the displeasure of having an apartment burglarized and losing a good deal of photo gear. Some of it was covered by on a rider policy but some of it was not. I had zero problems collecting on the gear covered by the rider but I had to argue with the adjuster and an independent appraiser to get reasonable compensation for the gear only covered by my renter's policy. An insurance rider or seperate personal property policy for photo gear will make it easier to deal with claims such as theft.

 

[tbarker13]

I have a separate rider on my State Farm homeowner's policy. It's a little over $200 a year to cover my M8 and a half dozen lenses, tripod, camera bag, disks, batteries, etc.
I had to send them an itemized list (kind of a pain, since the list is always changing) including serial numbers.
I suspect, however, that a policy would cost quite a bit more if the equipment were being used professionally.

 

[crawdiddy]

A few years ago, the house I was renting was burglarized, and my renters insurance paid for everything (minus deductible). I had several lenses and one 35mm body, plus a videocamera, binoculars and a TV stolen. I had to supply a bunch of documentation, but they paid a very reasonable price for replacement. And I would say nearly all of it was equipment no longer being manufactured (out of production models), except for maybe a 50mm lens.

Of course this was all consumer equipment, not professional.

How would one draw the line between collectible equipment and stuff you use? It seems to me you can call anything "collectible." But if you actually use it, then it's different.

I think jewelry may be in a different category, insurance wise. But in my experience, camera equipment was fully covered.

 

[peter_n]

What others have said, a rider to your homeowers will do it. Value at replacing each piece in full. Have the inventory properly documented: take photos plus a close-up of the serial nr for each piece. Then you should be OK with a claim.

 

[dlove5]

I'm a believer in having a separate rider to a homeowner/renter policy for camera gear. Years ago, I had a Leica Imarect viewfinder fall off the camera (didn't fit tightly in accessory shoe) and the insurance covered it fully. What was funny, was when the claims adjuster tried to call around to find out the replacement cost. They ended up asking me to just go buy one and send them the receipt.

Switched insurance companies later, but didn't get a rider right away. Dropped my M2, knocking the rangefinder prism loose.

I now have the rider again.

 

[Dogman]

When I had to deal with an adjuster, he got the value of my old Nikon F/FTn cameras and Nikkor lenses (which were not covered by the rider) from a camera wholesaler. The wholesaler gave him the value based on what he would pay for the equipment sight unseen (would anybody actually do that?). Needless to say, it was incredibly undervalued. I objected and got a local camera store to provide estimates of the prices they would ask for the equipment and also contacted the appraisal source and asked him how I could get the equivalent equipment for the prices he provided the adjuster. When he agreed I would probably not be able to do so, I asked him to amend his appraisal. It all worked out fine in the end but it was not a happy experience.

I had absolutely no problem getting compensation for the equipment on the rider. The insurance company had a check in my hands, less deductible, within a week and I ordered new replacement equipment almost immediately.