Insurance on photog equipment ?

Skorri

Was talking to a freelance photographer at a recent NASCAR race and she mentioned in passing to make sure I got my gear insured, especially when you start accumulating the high end stuff. She was nice enough to answer enough of my questions that I didn't want to bother her for an explanation on the insurance one. I'm under the assumption that homeowners would cover the theft part (break in to your house). What if you are on the road, away from the house for a weekend shoot, or vacation ? Stolen from your car or hotel ? :scratch She probably had 20k of gear on her that day. Is there such an animal as a policy that covers your gear ?

:thumb

ziggy53

A couple threads to check:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=194096
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=189767

Be sure to note some of the exclusions that are common.

kitkos

I just recently purchased insurance for my equipment. Didn't shop around because it's just easier for me to use my agent that handles all of my insurance. Details: Farm Bureau, $354.00 per year for 20k of gear. After reading this thread it got me wondering so I went back to my agent to ask about specifics.
He states: "These items are covered anywhere in the world and for theft and any physical damage, even if you drop something and break it, it's covered. You do have automatic coverage for newly acquired items. the item as far as rental, according to our coverage book, it must be in your care custody and control. which means you are covered for rented equipment."

paddler4

Read your homeowner's policy or call your agent (better yet: read it first, and then call) before you decide whether you need more insurance. Most policies specifically say which property has limited coverage and which loses are and are not covered. On my homeowner's policy, there is no dollar limit on coverage of photo equipment, but there are limitations on losses. E.g., when I dropped my EF 100mm L macro into a lake, and it landed on a rock in about 4" of water (!!!!!), it was not covered. Theft off premises is covered on my policy, as are a bunch of other losses.

zoomer

Yeah I had to get a rider for my camera equipment. It was not covered under just my home owners.
That may have been because I used it for business...can't remember.
As others said don't assume it is covered under your home owners....it may be....but for sure check it.

System

My homeowners covered my photo gear up to a certain dollar amount. I don't remember the exact number but I do know it would not nearly cover what I had.

Just another thing to mention on the homeowners...it covers jewelry the same way. Only a certain dollar amount is covered without an extra policy.

andiamo

It's best to get a rider. It's not that expensive compared to the replacement cost and I sleep better. I just added a rider to my homeowners that listed each piece of gear, the cost and serial number.

NeilL

The payout amount issue is a simple one, just follow the dots and what you land on is the cost and benefit to you. What is *not* simple is circumstances of loss. This comes down to interpretation of the policy wording, and that is done by the assessors, not by you, and not by your agent, and is done for their benefit, and the agent's, not yours.

If the generic homeowners policy, with all the bells and whistles, was comprehensive for insurance customers with gear like some of you, where would be the need for professional coverage? Sure under homeowners you can name the level of your gear cover in the policy, with or without mention of specific items. But when it comes to making a claim, how much money is not immediately the point - the point is whether you get any money at all!

Get an explanation of the circumstances a claim will be allowed and not allowed, of the interpretation of the words of the policy, clearly stated in writing from the company, not the agent. Words in a policy such as "normal/nominated place the item is kept", "use" and "income", should cause your alarm to go off!

Neil

Art Scott

NeilL is correct...but no has mentioned here is with home owners policies if you make any amount of money you are considered a PRO by the parent company...this is coming from my experience with one of the Nations larges Insuresers of Homes...not naming the company.....but I lost my first kit and I had had my home and car insured for several years with them....and 1 sikmple question killed me...Have you ever made any money with your equipment?? My answer yeah I sold a picture the other day for $25.....out come for my claim...I got nothing cause my equpment was being used to make money......So check with not only your agent as they do not know all the ins and outs even tho they are supposed to...but check with the home office, as that is who ultimately makes the final decision on if your claim is paid or not.

If you're making money of any kind then get a PRO business insurance so there is no worries if a claim needs to be made.......

Also 99.9% of all homeowners policies and their riders (inland Marine Riders) are depreciative not replacement value......Make dang sure you're insured for full current replacement value.

kdog

paddler4 wrote: »

On my homeowner's policy, there is no dollar limit on coverage of photo equipment

No limits at all, huh? You read this in writing, or your agent told you so?

NagoC50

kdog wrote: »

No limits at all, huh? You read this in writing, or your agent told you so?

I am also skeptical --- in 18 years of practicing law, a fair amount of which was insurance-related, I've yet to see an uncapped limit on something such as a homeowner's policy. Not saying it doesn't exist, but I've never seen it. Read your policy and declarations page/sheet to check policy limits and scour the policy for exclusions.

For a lot of the folks on here, Art's thoughts (and unfortunate story) are spot-on. If you shoot for $, make sure that you have an appropriate policy that doesn't exclude coverage based on what you are doing or that is otherwise business related. It's similar to many folks who occassionally use their personal vehicle for business reasons but only report to their carrier that they drive 10 miles a day for pleasure. They then get asked to deliver something for work -- a business purpose -- and coverage may be denied.

And now for the disclaimer: none of this is legal advice and consult a local attorney!

rpcrowe

Separate Policy
I would like to insure my photo equipment under a separate policy; one other than my homeowner's insurance.

If I have a claim against my homeowner's insurance, my insurance rates will likely go up. Since the homeowners insurance is a lot larger in value and more expensive in premiums; it might cost me more than the claim for photo equipment would be worth.

Does anyone know of any stand alone photo equipment policies for non professional photographers?

NeilL

rpcrowe wrote: »

I would like to insure my photo equipment under a separate policy; one other than my homeowner's insurance.

If I have a claim against my homeowner's insurance, my insurance rates will likely go up. Since the homeowners insurance is a lot larger in value and more expensive in premiums; it might cost me more than the claim for photo equipment would be worth.

Does anyone know of any stand alone photo equipment policies for non professional photographers?

As far as I know, and speaking from Australia, there is no such middle ground. The critical factors are what have been spelled out above, and it is typical that homeowners insurance does not extend to gear which is perceived by assessors to be used, and in use, for earnings in and away from the premises insured. Maybe the best you can do to limit your insurance cost is get adequate (and replacement) cover for your gear only, with a professional policy, but without personal-business and/or 3rd party liability cover options. You could expect the cost to be ~$300pa for $10,000 cover.

Neil

kdog

The insurance agent I had for my State Farm home owners insurance sold me a consumer-level insurance policy by Inland Marine for my camera gear which was priced by the amount of coverage you wanted. It specifically excluded professional use of your gear. I ended up dropping it when the agent couldn't give me a straight answer what constituted "professional use", and I wasn't about to find out by waiting to make a claim. However, the implication was that the "Buy" button on your Smugmug account most likely makes you a professional.

Art Scott

rpcrowe wrote: »

I would like to insure my photo equipment under a separate policy; one other than my homeowner's insurance.

If I have a claim against my homeowner's insurance, my insurance rates will likely go up. Since the homeowners insurance is a lot larger in value and more expensive in premiums; it might cost me more than the claim for photo equipment would be worth.

Does anyone know of any stand alone photo equipment policies for non professional photographers?

How non Pro is a NON PRO like you??

Here is my results for a simple Google Search for Photography Insurance: http://tinyurl.com/3wlb7lw

Camera Equipment Insurance: http://tinyurl.com/3pm3vsf

Hope these help.

kitkos

NeilL -
What I mentioned in my opening statement IS my Professional policy, it is not my homeowners policy nor a rider added to my homeowners. I did not mention, however, that I was required to itemize all of my equipment and supply serial numbers. Replacement of items is at replacement cost and not depreciated.
I do have the policy in hand and I am covered, as stated, for out of country, damage due to me bouncing it off of concrete or dropping it in water, and rentals are covered. All newly purchased items have a 14 day binder automatically applied to them.

Also you mention 'and not by your agent" and "clearly stated in writing from the company, not the agent."
While I do agree that the policy itself is the most important piece of evidence as to exactly what coverage you have. If you have statements made by your agent IN WRITING the underwriter cannot overrule against you. It does not have to be anything formal and notarized, a simple email from him/her with statements about your policy will hold up. As far as the courts are concerned your AGENT is the PRIMARY representative of the insurance company and any statements he/she makes concerning your insurance are binding.
Now, will the agent be dismissed from the company for making misleading statements and/or promises just to sell you a policy? More than likely, but the company cannot deny claims where their agent has made statements/promises concerning their policies.

NeilL wrote: »

The payout amount issue is a simple one, just follow the dots and what you land on is the cost and benefit to you. What is *not* simple is circumstances of loss. This comes down to interpretation of the policy wording, and that is done by the assessors, not by you, and not by your agent, and is done for their benefit, and the agent's, not yours.

If the generic homeowners policy, with all the bells and whistles, was comprehensive for insurance customers with gear like some of you, where would be the need for professional coverage? Sure under homeowners you can name the level of your gear cover in the policy, with or without mention of specific items. But when it comes to making a claim, how much money is not immediately the point - the point is whether you get any money at all!

Get an explanation of the circumstances a claim will be allowed and not allowed, of the interpretation of the words of the policy, clearly stated in writing from the company, not the agent. Words in a policy such as "normal/nominated place the item is kept", "use" and "income", should cause your alarm to go off!

Neil

paddler4

kdog wrote: »

No limits at all, huh? You read this in writing, or your agent told you so?

Both. In every policy I have had, there are several sections pertaining to this. One is a general limitation on the value of property they will replace, based on the value of the policy or covered real estate. This limit of course applies to photographic equipment, if there is no lower specific limit. The second is a section that lists explicitly all classes of personal property not covered or subject to specific lower limits. On my policy, there are 11 categories excluded and 15 more limited. Photographic equipment is not in either list. However, an important additional point made by one of the other posters is that this is a whole different ball game if you are a professional. (I'm not.) If you are a professional, you also have to look out for a limitation on or exclusion of property used for business purposes. for example, my policy as, as the 7th limitation:

"7. Business property. $1000 for any property on the residence premises used or intended for use in a business."

You should also look for the provision that governs losses off premises. Mine says:

"If a covered loss occurs away from your residence, we will pay up to the limit of liability shown in the declarations for the selected single location from which the payment is to be made."

Icebear

Many homeowner insurers sell a very inexpensive rider called something like a "home-based business endorsement" that extends liability and property coverage to your photography business activities and equipment on the same basis that you are covered for non-business activities. It's really worth looking into.

Most homeowner policies cover your personal property on a named-perils basis, which means that a loss is only covered if caused by one of the perils named in the policy. Some renters policies cover your property on an all-risk basis. A personal articals floater covers listed property against all risks (unless specifically excluded) and at replacement cost. It's the cadillac policy.

Icebear

rpcrowe wrote: »

If I have a claim against my homeowner's insurance, my insurance rates will likely go up. Since the homeowners insurance is a lot larger in value and more expensive in premiums; it might cost me more than the claim for photo equipment would be worth.
QUOTE]

This statement is absolutely incorrect. In NO state in the USA is a property insurer allowed to raise a Homeowner or Renter policyholder's premium based on the amount or frequency of claims. They MAY however refuse to renew your policy, or require you to accept a higher deductible (at the same rate anyone else would pay for that deductible) but your premium for homeowner insurance is NOT determined by YOUR claims experience. You are confusing property insurance with automobile insurance.

NeilL

kitkos wrote: »

NeilL -
What I mentioned in my opening statement IS my Professional policy, it is not my homeowners policy nor a rider added to my homeowners. I did not mention, however, that I was required to itemize all of my equipment and supply serial numbers. Replacement of items is at replacement cost and not depreciated.
I do have the policy in hand and I am covered, as stated, for out of country, damage due to me bouncing it off of concrete or dropping it in water, and rentals are covered. All newly purchased items have a 14 day binder automatically applied to them.

Also you mention 'and not by your agent" and "clearly stated in writing from the company, not the agent."
While I do agree that the policy itself is the most important piece of evidence as to exactly what coverage you have. If you have statements made by your agent IN WRITING the underwriter cannot overrule against you. It does not have to be anything formal and notarized, a simple email from him/her with statements about your policy will hold up. As far as the courts are concerned your AGENT is the PRIMARY representative of the insurance company and any statements he/she makes concerning your insurance are binding.
Now, will the agent be dismissed from the company for making misleading statements and/or promises just to sell you a policy? More than likely, but the company cannot deny claims where their agent has made statements/promises concerning their policies.

OK and good! I have a doubt though that a company would be liable for an agent's *interpretation* of the words of a policy, especially without prior consultation with the company. After all, an agent also has a responsibility to make sure the information they give is correct.

Neil

NeilL

Icebear wrote: »

Many homeowner insurers sell a very inexpensive rider called something like a "home-based business endorsement" that extends liability and property coverage to your photography business activities and equipment on the same basis that you are covered for non-business activities. It's really worth looking into.

That's interesting. I did not find any such option when I was investigating insurance for my gear. My homeowners would cover my gear, whether used for business or not, yes, but would not cover it *while in use* for business, only while those items were *kept* at the insured premises or in transit to and from there.

Neil

NeilL

paddler4 wrote: »

if you are a professional. (I'm not.)

Care here, because it is not you who decides if you are professional or not but the insurance assessors.

Neil