Advice for equipment insurance?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Seeing as how I'm buying more and more equipment lately, and will, in the near future, be getting some very expensive gear, I am definitely considering an insurance plan. So I'm curious what other people are doing in that area to help me decide what my best options are.

Who here has insurance to protect their photo equipment? What kind of plan do you have, and through which company? What is covered, and where is it covered?

Thanks

[Sponge]

Hi Matt, I don't actually have insurance yet but I did see a good article recently on gear theft prevention on the lensrentals.com blog that might interest you.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013...rom-gear-theft

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Matt,

I have a separate policy, with cover for hobby shooting including theft from an unattended vehicle (as long as it wasn't 'on display').
It also provides third-party liability cover in case someone else (for example), trips over a tripod leg while I am photographing.

I've never used it, I'm too careful ( did I really just say that?), ok; lets say 'lucky' to have needed it.

Of course it is UK based, so not directly relevant to you I'm afraid, but I seem to be paying about 4% of sum insured per annum.

From memory; the cover is UK only, with up to 30 days abroad per year - it does require the use of the neck strap (when fitted) if using camera, which suits me fine.

I did baulk at the premium this year, but as a percentage, that doesn't seem too bad, I must have too much kit!

[DanK]

I think the first step is to check whether my existing homeowner's or renter's insurance, if you have it, covers the equipment without a rider, and if so, what losses are covered. (Mine covers theft, but not stupid mistakes like dropping a lens, which I have done.) Also check whether there is a dollar limit.

If the answers to that are not acceptable, inquire about the costs and provisions of a rider that would give you the coverage you want. Then you can compare both the price and the provisions against independent policies.

In my opinion, insurance against small losses makes little sense. The principle of insurance is that the insurer estimates average risk and charges you for your share, plus profit. This makes a great deal of sense when insuring against losses one can't handle, such as losing one's home to a fire or being sued for a large amount after a traffic accident. However, for smaller expenses that the insured can in fact handle, the average costs of insurance will necessarily be higher than the average cost of repairs or replacement. That is why extended warranties are usually a bad deal for the consumer. the way I handle this is to buy policies with large deductibles if they are substantially cheaper. But, to each his or her own.

[terrib]

Matt, We have a special rider on our homeowner's insurance. It covers listed equipment and is not subject to the homeowner's deductible. My husband took it out before we made the trip to Hawaii. It covers loss of any kind including from hotel room and an unattended vehicle. I THINK it covers if I drop it in the river but I'm not sure about that. I was mostly worried about theft from hotels and vehicles or robbery while hiking. The thing I have to remember is to keep what's listed up to date.

[rpcrowe]

The problem with home owners insurance for photo gear is that if you have a loss, it might probably be relatively minor in comparison to the amount which the home is insured. As an example, my two Canon 7D cameras, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens plus extras such as flashes, CF carda and various filters probably amounts to about five thousand U.S. Dollars. My house is insured for a half million U.S. Dollars.

If I were to make a claim against my homeowners insurance, my rates would go up. The rates would go up for the entire half-million dollar amount for which the house is insured. This would probably negate any value from making a claim against the homeowner's policy for my camera gear...

[FlyingSquirrel]

Awesome and helpful answers, everyone! Thank you all for helping out on this.

Patrick, that is a superb blog post, thank you for the link! If anyone looking at this did not read that blog post, I highly recommend you take the time!

...smaller expenses that the insured can in fact handle, the average costs of insurance will necessarily be higher than the average cost of repairs or replacement....buy policies with large deductibles if they are substantially cheaper.

Dan, excellent thoughts and advice. Until you mentioned it and I started reading more and thinking about this, this had not occurred to me. I will compare prices / costs for various insurance policies, and then think about how much each piece of equipment is worth. If the costs for insurance are not justified for particular gear, I will instead put away money each month as 'self insurance' as opposed to dumping money repeatedly into the black hole of insurance cost. It always is a matter of risk though, for example if I lost ALL of my gear at one time, all of the smaller things that were not insured would add up and if I didn't have enough saved up by then, that would be a problem. It's a tough call.

Hmmm, just thinking...I could probably put some of the small and all of the medium/large priced items all on the policy, and at the same time as I am paying insurance, I could also be stowing away money each month until I build enough up to cover a loss for each item, and then remove that particular smaller or medium priced item from the policy at that point. It would be "paying twice" if you will, but having it insured while I'm saving up would mitigate the damages if I should lose the equipment before I can afford to replace it myself. If the policy is not too expensive, it could be worth it, IMO. Will have to think this through a bit more and check prices and what my gear is worth. Regardless of what happens, if I pick up, say a Canon 500mm f/4 IS like I'm considering, it will definitely be on the policy

[loosecanon]

I have specifically added it to my home insurance policy, as all risks, the total amount being the value of what I may take out with me at any time, rather than every lens I own. The rest of the house policy covers everything whilst in house, and for all risks and replacement with new for old. The extra cost is about £200 a year - for £14,000 cover (new for old so its replacement cost) I supply for insurers records a list of equipment and estimated replacement cost so should a claim arise they have a record of serial numbers and value. I find this route much cheaper than custom photographic policies.

[jcuknz]

With the current world situation of disaster after disaster premiums are going up and up as my monthly bill indicates to me and there is the situation of doubt if the company will pay up if the crunch comes. In total I probably do have quite a bit of gear but none of it individually amounts to much and the excess, the amount you have to contribute to covering the loss means claiming on small items is silly. With my 26ft yacht I organised an excess of $1000 and the premiums were still getting prohibitive in the year before I sold it.
I guess it is a balance between peace of mind and one's bank account. I have only claimed once or twice on any insurance, around 40 years or more ago But I doubt if I would have saved the premiums for the rainy day.

[Sponge]

Patrick, that is a superb blog post, thank you for the link! If anyone looking at this did not read that blog post, I highly recommend you take the time!

No problem Matt! It looked like a lot of helpful information so I'm glad you found it useful.