Camera and Equipment Insurance..
TOF guy wrote:
I can attest to the usefulness of extra insurance in the form of a rider (in the US at least).
There is an additional key point which your agent did not mention but is very important: if you rely on your home insurance you'll get a deductible off your loss (as you mention) but also the the reimbursement will be based on the estimated actual value of your equipment (this last point is not mentioned in your post).Say a camera cost you $1,000 new but is now 2 years old, the insurance company may estimage that it losts 30% of its original value (or 15%) due to "age" and the reimbursement will be based on $700. Substract a deductible like $500 and you get back $200. Bottom line you're in for most of the cost of buying back this specific equipment.
What makes insurance riders very valuable is that the reimbursement is based on what you initially spent on the equipment: no value loss with time (some insurance at their discretion will give the money or buy you the very same camera but new).
My D300 got stolen nearly a year ago with the 28-70 f2.8 attached. The insurance (Libertual Mutual, they deserve the positive feedback) gave me back what I paid for the equipment, no age depreciation no deductible. The reimbursement went a long way helping me with the loss. This makes it a must have IMO whether you're a pro or an amateur.-- hide signature --
Thanks for clarifying that point, my agent had told me that I just forgot to mention it. I'm definitely going to gather my receipts and add the rider to my home owners. The cost is minimal with a ZERO deductible, you can't beat that.
"We don't remember days, we remember moments"..
Nikon D600 | MacBook Pro | Adobe Lightroom 4