Some thoughts on insuring camera gear

[Steve M.]

For me, insurance agents are in the same class as lawyers and other professional liars. I will tell you from past experience that those creeps will find a way to deny a claim in a New Yawk second, and as I said, they are the pros when it comes to lying with a straight face. They make aluminum siding people look like saints.

Just self insure. Why roll the dice in order to lose? Unless you actually lose your stuff somehow, you are paying a monthly or yearly bill for nothing, and if you have life insurance, you are betting that you are going to die and the insurance company is betting you are going to live. Even if you have a legitimate claim, you have no chance of getting a payoff from your insurer if they just decide to deny a claim. Suing them (and now you need a lawyer!!!) is a bad bet. Those corporations can fight you until you actually do drop dead.

But, people do peculiar things with their finances based upon their fears. That's always a bad premise to operate from, and a lot of these corporations have gotten very wealthy by playing on those fears.

 

[Fraser]

Always had insurance as long as I have been a professional photographer, last claim I made was for a 1d series body and 70-200 falling out of the boot of my car insurance company paid up no bother.

 

[Dogman]

I've never had any real issues with insurance companies about filed claims. My issues have been with agents who were incompetent. That's happened a couple of times with two different companies.

 

[willie_901]

Dear Willie,

And, of course, would you actually repurchase all (or indeed any) of them?

Cheers,

R.

Sure.

I would not be happy about spending the money, but it would not cause hardship or sacrifice.

Claim proceeds are affected by depreciation and a deductible. Unless you pay higher premiums for replacement value and, or a low deductible – you will spend out-of-pocket funds anyway. Sometimes uninsured losses are tax deductible. These significantly affect the risk assessment.

I have about $2,000 worth of sunglasses and prescription glasses. If these were lost I would have a $5,000 deductible. So, I'm self-insured for glasses. The $5,000 deductible significantly reduces the premium. Between 2000 and 2016 our new home had its roof, gutters, siding, etc destroyed by two different hailstorms. Those repairs cost nearly $60,000. I paid $10,000 in deductibles. There was no depreciation since both roofs were essentially new. I broke even on the trade off between premiums costs ($1,000 deductible vs $5,000) and increased out of pocket expense due to the high deductible.

I do have replacement policy rider for my wife's jewelry. Jewelry losses rates are statistically high; there's more risk.

From 1998-2014 I owned a 1971 911S, I had it insured for replacement value because it was mechanically restored and happened to appreciate in value. But our daily cars have a large deductible and depreciation applies.

It may be hard to believe, but our insurance agent was the one who advised me to not over-spend on insurance. Only after I was trained in probability theory did I realize his ad-hoc advice was mathematically sound. Then, by coincidence I learned that many insurance companies computer premium costs (asses risk) using probability theory.

 

[kxl]

My home insurance covers covers the replacement cost of my camera gear (and other personal equipment) up to $15k for non-professional use, minus a deductible It does cover damage or loss whether at home or while traveling. Of course I could increase that coverage if I were willing to pay the premium increase.

 

[David Hughes]

Just an aside; years ago I borrowed some moon rock samples from NASA and they came round to check the house, security, safe etc, etc. So I wrote to the insurance people to tell them and ask for a discount due to the high state of security and...

Well, go on, guess how long after I'd returned the rock they replied and what the answer was.

Regards, David

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sure.

I would not be happy about spending the money, but it would not cause hardship or sacrifice.

Claim proceeds are affected by depreciation and a deductible. Unless you pay higher premiums for replacement value and, or a low deductible – you will spend out-of-pocket funds anyway. Sometimes uninsured losses are tax deductible. These significantly affect the risk assessment.

I have about $2,000 worth of sunglasses and prescription glasses. If these were lost I would have a $5,000 deductible. So, I'm self-insured for glasses. The $5,000 deductible significantly reduces the premium. Between 2000 and 2016 our new home had its roof, gutters, siding, etc destroyed by two different hailstorms. Those repairs cost nearly $60,000. I paid $10,000 in deductibles. There was no depreciation since both roofs were essentially new. I broke even on the trade off between premiums costs ($1,000 deductible vs $5,000) and increased out of pocket expense due to the high deductible.

I do have replacement policy rider for my wife's jewelry. Jewelry losses rates are statistically high; there's more risk.

From 1998-2014 I owned a 1971 911S, I had it insured for replacement value because it was mechanically restored and happened to appreciate in value. But our daily cars have a large deductible and depreciation applies.

It may be hard to believe, but our insurance agent was the one who advised me to not over-spend on insurance. Only after I was trained in probability theory did I realize his ad-hoc advice was mathematically sound. Then, by coincidence I learned that many insurance companies computer premium costs (asses risk) using probability theory.

Dear Willie,

All completely irrelevant. We're talking about camera insurance, not sunglasses, roofs, jewellery or Porsches.

I have more cameras than I need, I most certainly wouldn't need (or even necessarily want) to replace all of them, even in the unlikely event that I lost the lot.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

With regard to the comments on specialized photographic equipment insurance and self-insurance, I definitely agree that it's a risk/reward calculation, and the results can be different for each person depending on things like their net worth and tolerance to risk, desire to replace in case of loss, and so on.

However, most of us are either home owners and have homeowners insurance (required by the holder of our mortgages if the home is not owned outright) or renters insurance, increasingly required by landlords of apartments and houses.

If you already have insurance of this sort, I still maintain that it is worth your time to examine your policy annually. Make sure you understand what the limits of your coverage, deductibles, type of replacement coverage, and any caps on the types of valuables you want covered.

One can eschew insurance all they wish, but in today's society is it practically impossible to operate without various forms of coverage. Rather than simply declaring all insurance companies and agents as crooks and ignoring the potential of insured loss with less-than-useful coverage, one might consider embracing the horror and at least finding out where they stand.

I for one am not overly fond of shelling out money each month to insure my home, my car, and perhaps especially my health and life. However, these things are mandated in various ways and there's precious little I can do about it.

I could ignore it all because "I hate insurance companies," and then when my possessions are damaged and I discover myself inadequately covered, I could rant and shout at the world about the unfairness of it all, or I could sit down with my agent, ignore his devil's horns and forked tail, and make sure all my questions are answered with regard to WHAT is covered, for HOW MUCH, what my DEDUCTIBLE is, and in what manner I would be reimbursed if I suffered a loss.

We have to deal with the devil. So you can say he's the devil and ignore him and then get the pitchfork you know is coming, or you can make the best possible deal prior to getting the pointy end of fate's stick. Your call.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I for one am not overly fond of shelling out money each month to insure my home, my car, and perhaps especially my health . . .

Underline: In most countries this is covered by compulsory taxes/ National Insurance/ Social Security.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Underline: In most countries this is covered by compulsory taxes/ National Insurance/ Social Security.

Cheers,

R.

Trying to avoid the political ramifications of such a discussion here, Roger, but I do take your point. I did say earlier on that I was mostly referring to the USA, as that is the experience I have to draw upon.

 

[Calzone]

With regard to the comments on specialized photographic equipment insurance and self-insurance, I definitely agree that it's a risk/reward calculation, and the results can be different for each person depending on things like their net worth and tolerance to risk, desire to replace in case of loss, and so on.

However, most of us are either home owners and have homeowners insurance (required by the holder of our mortgages if the home is not owned outright) or renters insurance, increasingly required by landlords of apartments and houses.

If you already have insurance of this sort, I still maintain that it is worth your time to examine your policy annually. Make sure you understand what the limits of your coverage, deductibles, type of replacement coverage, and any caps on the types of valuables you want covered.

One can eschew insurance all they wish, but in today's society is it practically impossible to operate without various forms of coverage. Rather than simply declaring all insurance companies and agents as crooks and ignoring the potential of insured loss with less-than-useful coverage, one might consider embracing the horror and at least finding out where they stand.

I for one am not overly fond of shelling out money each month to insure my home, my car, and perhaps especially my health and life. However, these things are mandated in various ways and there's precious little I can do about it.

I could ignore it all because "I hate insurance companies," and then when my possessions are damaged and I discover myself inadequately covered, I could rant and shout at the world about the unfairness of it all, or I could sit down with my agent, ignore his devil's horns and forked tail, and make sure all my questions are answered with regard to WHAT is covered, for HOW MUCH, what my DEDUCTIBLE is, and in what manner I would be reimbursed if I suffered a loss.

We have to deal with the devil. So you can say he's the devil and ignore him and then get the pitchfork you know is coming, or you can make the best possible deal prior to getting the pointy end of fate's stick. Your call.

Bill,

I'm glad you brought out this clarity, and at my near retirement age where de-accumulation has already started, and a further cull down of possessions this post makes me consider many things that otherwise I might not have thought about.

I also considered something Roger mentioned: that in my case any insurance claim would likely not be replacing what I had, likely would be less gear in quantity, and gear selection would relate to a more modern selection and cost basis. Pretty much no going back for me to what I once had.

The funny thing is that the experience of having owned and used so much gear made me understand how little remorse I would have if something bad did happen. This understanding pretty much helps me move forward, and I'm greatful for that. Kinda adds closure so no loss would be felt. It also very much helps me move into retirement where I feel like an 18 year old again wondering about the decades to come.

Cal

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

I'm glad you brought out this clarity, and at my near retirement age where de-accumulation has already started, and a further cull down of possessions this post makes me consider many things that otherwise I might not have thought about.

I also considered something Roger mentioned: that in my case any insurance claim would likely not be replacing what I had, likely would be less gear in quantity, and gear selection would relate to a more modern selection and cost basis. Pretty much no going back for me to what I once had.

The funny thing is that the experience of having owned and used so much gear made me understand how little remorse I would have if something bad did happen. This understanding pretty much helps me move forward, and I'm greatful for that. Kinda adds closure so no loss would be felt. It also very much helps me move into retirement where I feel like an 18 year old again wondering about the decades to come.

Cal

I recently bought a smaller home and relocated, although I am still working full time and probably will have to do so until I am no longer employable for whatever reason - retirement is beyond my grasp, but I'm OK. In any case, yes, downsizing has been happening, and I think it's entirely legitimate to include that in one's calculus when deciding what to insure and for how much. My goal here is to ask people to at least think about it and make decisions based on their actual needs rather than simply ignoring it and hoping for a good outcome.

Like many things, insurance offers better rewards, whether in terms of lower costs to insure or better outcomes in the case of a loss, to those who give some thought to what they are doing and why. There's no right answers, everyone is different, but there are informed decisions, which can help avoid an insurance catastrophe on top of a natural disaster or theft, etc, catastrophe.

 

[Calzone]

I recently bought a smaller home and relocated, although I am still working full time and probably will have to do so until I am no longer employable for whatever reason - retirement is beyond my grasp, but I'm OK. In any case, yes, downsizing has been happening, and I think it's entirely legitimate to include that in one's calculus when deciding what to insure and for how much. My goal here is to ask people to at least think about it and make decisions based on their actual needs rather than simply ignoring it and hoping for a good outcome.

Like many things, insurance offers better rewards, whether in terms of lower costs to insure or better outcomes in the case of a loss, to those who give some thought to what they are doing and why. There's no right answers, everyone is different, but there are informed decisions, which can help avoid an insurance catastrophe on top of a natural disaster or theft, etc, catastrophe.

Bill,

Over the decades we accumulate possessions, and now I'm de-accumulating. I have some high dollar possessions I consider treasure because like a bar of gold they are "hard assets" of enduring value.

I grew up poor, so my hoarding is a mark of poverty, but deep down I know I don't need a lot to be happy.

I say I never knew anyone who had a complicated life that was happy, and I'm a happy guy who just wants a simple life that is unburdened.

Moving forward I think I will likely sell many of these trophies just to not have them as liabilities and to be less burdened. Really interesting to realize the comfort once provided, the sentimentality, and the security one valued now seems different and changed.

So to stay on topic, do I really need so many cameras, and what is really-really important.

In line with Roger's logic I would really limit my cameras to only two: one digital and the other film. Really all I would need.

In the end, my thinking has changed, and I think I know where I'm heading.

Cal

 

[ptpdprinter]

In line with Roger's logic I would really limit my cameras to only two: one digital and the other film. Really all I would need.

In the end, my thinking has changed, and I think I know where I'm heading.

I thought you just bought a new camera last week.

 

[Calzone]

I thought you just bought a new camera last week.

PTP,

I bought a 1956 Tower 45/46, a LTM camera that has a lever film advance and a M3 style door. This particular camera was also marketed as a Nicca 5L. The Tower version was sold by Sears.

I bought this camera for no money, and it is in remarkable condition. The camera is kinda rare, and there is no doubt that I likely could "day-trade" this camera or even profit.

Lastly it is about half the price of a III G, so think of the money I saved. LOL.

Cal

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . in my case any insurance claim would likely not be replacing what I had, likely would be less gear in quantity, and gear selection would relate to a more modern selection and cost basis. Pretty much no going back for me to what I once had.

The funny thing is that the experience of having owned and used so much gear made me understand how little remorse I would have if something bad did happen. This understanding pretty much helps me move forward, and I'm greatful for that. Kinda adds closure so no loss would be felt. It also very much helps me move into retirement where I feel like an 18 year old again wondering about the decades to come.

Cal

Dear Cal,

YES! Hold on to that thought!

Or maybe you'd be going back to what you once had just to take pictures, without collecting cameras.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Dear Cal,

YES! Hold on to that thought!

Or maybe you'd be going back to what you once had just to take pictures, without collecting cameras.

Cheers,

R.

In my case, less a collection, more an accumulation of items which held or still hold my interest. A harmless pasttime at worst. Certainly doesn't get in the way of my committing photography from time to time.

 

[alan davus]

Get a Tenterfield dog. Nothing, man or beast will ever get inside to flog your gear.

 

[JeffS7444]

I have shared this link a number of times before, but it's a really good one:

http://www.missminimalist.com/2010/05/nothing-to-steal/

I'm not yet at her level, but my camera collection is more Zenit than Zeiss; more about emotional appeal (to me, anyhow) than chasing after The Best stuff.

Every so often, I sift through my possessions looking for items which might have decent resale value but which I'm not enjoying, or in some cases, barely even remember buying. I once went on a multi-year selling frenzy and it was like owning a magic sofa: Every time I reached under the cushions, I found more $100 bills!

 

[bmattock]

Get a Tenterfield dog. Nothing, man or beast will ever get inside to flog your gear.

Does it keep out floods, fire, and tornadoes?