Photography Insurance

Last night one of my good friends had 15K worth of gear stolen from his vehicle while on the way to a shoot. A 1dmkII that was not added to his policy, a 1d, and all his L glass including his 400 mm. While I don't own nearly that much gear this has started me thinking. I could not afford to replace my gear if it were lost all at once. I have a 10D, 300D, selection of good lenses and other gear.

I want to buy a policy to insure against such occurances. I am not making much money with my gear, but I cannot afford a devistating loss like that. I am looking for a policy for professional photographers and their gear that is not part of a home policy. Does anyone have some ideas on this?

Thanks in advance.

--
Tony
Canon Shooter
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/500087

About $8,000 worth. It cost me about $100 a year.
I just got the main stuff insured, body, L lenses and flashes.
--
EOSMan

http://www.pbase.com/eosman

Wouldn't his car insurance cover such a theft?

--
EOSMan

http://www.pbase.com/eosman

Sorry about your friends loss.

I'm in my 2nd year of coverage with a policy obtained from Hill & Usher Insurance - The carrier in my case is The Hartford. They have a lot of info on their website that might give some good ideas, even if you buy coverage elsewhere.

I was amazed at the things I never even thought of covering. All kinds of liability and business related risks.

Home page is:
http://www.hillusher.com/index.html

This page is targeted at Portrait and Wedding Photographers:
http://www.hillusher.com/WPPI/index.html

This page covers a long list of home businesses, including Photographer/Photography Studio:
http://www.insurething.com/ihbp/ihbp-buslist.htm

For reference, my "Photographers Insurance Package" is $500 per year, which covers roughly $18,000 of equipment (cameras, computers, printers, office and studio stuff), plus the liability and other insurance components.

Hope you find this useful.

• Frank

Frank DeMarco said:

For reference, my "Photographers Insurance Package" is $500 per
year, which covers roughly $18,000 of equipment (cameras,
computers, printers, office and studio stuff), plus the liability
and other insurance components.

Hope you find this useful.

• Frank

Click to expand...

Frank,
I hope that covers your homeowner's insurance as well !!!
$500 for $18000 of equipment is absurd.

I pay $165 for a million dollar liability umbrella on top of $650 for homeowners insurance on a 2000 Sq. Foot home. (Lost my real home in a divorce)

The $650 covers $20,000 in Guns, $20,000 in electronics and an additional $200,000 in standard contents. i.e. Sofa, Chair, Bed, clothes, etc.

Sounds like you may want to shop around.

No, I am not an insurance salesman nor do I have any stock in any insurance companies.

All of my friends would say I was crazy to leave that gear in my truck even for 20 minutes. (My friends got me thinking maybe I SHOULD INSURE). I have USAA insurance so I called for a quote....the policy I have for my camera gear now is called a "personal article floater", I think? I currently insure about $25k worth of gear. it costs less than $30 a month. And there is no deductible. Covers theft and damage (even if I drop my gear). really is great peace of mind for me now.

-MK

'There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept' - Ansel Adams

Most Lenses are Better Than Most Photographers'

• Michael H. Reichmann

'The first rule of photography is that there are no rules.'

• Edward Weston

Anthony J. Bessey said:

Last night one of my good friends had 15K worth of gear stolen from
his vehicle while on the way to a shoot. A 1dmkII that was not
added to his policy, a 1d, and all his L glass including his 400
mm.

Click to expand...

You may be comparing apples to oranges. Your friend "on the way to a shoot" sounds like a pro...a pro is basically someone that makes money with the camera equipment. Many insurers will not cover camera equipment used professionally on a personal policy. If it is a personal policy and he is paying amateur rates...he may be in a bigger hurt once the carrier finds out he is a pro, if that is really the case. Coverage could be denied in the worst case scenario.

Secondly, if he is an amateur and he has a typical home/renter/condo-owner's policy...the coverage on the basic policy does not exclude theft of camera equipment...the coverage is limited off premises and it is subject to a deductible and possibly depreciation...depending on the policy...there could be coverage on the unscheduled items after all.

Anthony J. Bessey said:

I want to buy a policy to insure against such occurances. I am not
making much money with my gear, but I cannot afford a devistating
loss like that. I am looking for a policy for professional
photographers and their gear that is not part of a home policy.
Does anyone have some ideas on this?

Click to expand...

What you are looking for is an Inland Marine contract called a "Floater" on which you list each item to be covered and its value. Coverage is world-wide...it may or may not be subject to a deductible...and the coverage is normally All Risk...including breakage.

These policies can be obtain in several ways...but the most common is thru professional associations.

The policies are also available thru professional independent insurance brokers...and can be fairly expensive as most carriers have a minimum premium of several $100 regardless of the value insured. The broker may also have a broker fee that he adds to this type policy as you would be a single policy account that does not develop enough income to cover the servicing expenses. Kind of like bumping a sticker...it's legal in most states...unless the agent is contracted to the company as such and is not acting strictly as a broker.

I do not handle these policies...and do not know what state you are in...the city, etc. But as standard rates for amateur equipment run between 1% and 2% of the value of the item...depending on location and carrier...I would guess that pro equipment on a stand alone policy would be 3 times that...at least. You might do a google search.

There are some carriers that will add a floater for pro use equipment to a home policy...but they seldom do that straight off. Most underwriters that have that option prefer to have had some prior experience with the client or documentation of prior loss free coverage from a previous carrier.

There are solutions, but they may not meet your cost preferences.

Anthony J. Bessey said:

Thanks in advance.--

Click to expand...

Joe Sesto

cardfan said:

Frank,
I hope that covers your homeowner's insurance as well !!!
$500 for $18000 of equipment is absurd.

No, I am not an insurance salesman nor do I have any stock in any
insurance companies.

Click to expand...

Your last sentence was the real clue.

The policies sold for pro photog's are called BUSINESSOWNER'S POLICIES...BOP's for short.

You are a HOMEOWNER...kind of like comparing your pickup insurance cost to that of a Peterbilt.

BOP's can be extended by endorsement/rider called FLOATERS to provide ALL RISK coverage to their equipment...off premises...including breakage...world-wide. These policies are designed for photographers working out of a store-type location...but no necessarily restricted thereto.

The on premises coverage is included in the BOP with all the other studio equipment...but the normal BOP has limited off premises coverage...and most agents recommend the floater as it is broader, etc.

Suggest you get an insurance license before you start giving insurance advice...my first one was issued in 2/1958.
--
Joe Sesto

cardfan said:

cardfan said:

For reference, my "Photographers Insurance Package" is $500 per
year, which covers roughly $18,000 of equipment (cameras,
computers, printers, office and studio stuff), plus the liability
and other insurance components.

Hope you find this useful.

• Frank

Click to expand...

Frank,
I hope that covers your homeowner's insurance as well !!!
$500 for $18000 of equipment is absurd.
I pay $165 for a million dollar liability umbrella on top of $650
for homeowners insurance on a 2000 Sq. Foot home. (Lost my real
home in a divorce)
The $650 covers $20,000 in Guns, $20,000 in electronics and an
additional $200,000 in standard contents. i.e. Sofa, Chair, Bed,
clothes, etc.

Sounds like you may want to shop around.

No, I am not an insurance salesman nor do I have any stock in any
insurance companies.

Click to expand...

Hi cardfan,

Good points to clarify. This is NOT a homeowner's policy! I'm paying about the same for my homeowner's and umbrella, including riders for "personal" equipment as you are - plus an earthquake rider that doubles the total. ;-)

The catch for me was earning a dollar with my camera. Any business use of my home, or insured equipment, etc. IS EXCLUDED from the regular home policy. And heaven forbid a "customer" in my home studio should trip over a tripod. Whoops, there goes the house, probably faster than in our divorces. :-(

I mentioned, but should have emphasized "THE LIABILITY AND OTHER INSURANCE COMPONENTS" parts of the policy. That is where I found the real value in this. Peruse the Pro Photo page for some examples:
http://www.hillusher.com/WPPI/index.html

So I guess the important point is being clear on the professional vs. hobby status of your photography and letting that guide the insurance needs. The risk vs. expense and coverage is more of a personal one after that point (deductibles, extents of coverage, etc.).

Hope this clarifies rather than further confuses the issue.

Any Canon carrying insurance agents out there, feel free to add to or correct this if need be.

Take Care,

• Frank

Joe Sesto said:

You may be comparing apples to oranges. Your friend "on the way to
a shoot" sounds like a pro...a pro is basically someone that makes
money with the camera equipment. Many insurers will not cover
camera equipment used professionally on a personal policy. If it
is a personal policy and he is paying amateur rates...he may be in
a bigger hurt once the carrier finds out he is a pro, if that is
really the case. Coverage could be denied in the worst case
scenario.

Click to expand...

My friend is a pro and is insured as such. I am basically looking to obtain a policy that acknowledges that I make some money with my gear although it is not what I depend on for a living. I just want to make sure my stuff is covered for this kind of thing.

Tony
Canon Shooter
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/500087

mkdive said:

'The first rule of photography is that there are no rules.'

• Edward Weston

Click to expand...

Yes, there is: 'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Anthony J. Bessey said:

My friend is a pro and is insured as such. I am basically looking
to obtain a policy that acknowledges that I make some money with my
gear although it is not what I depend on for a living. I just want
to make sure my stuff is covered for this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

You may not find that. "Making money" is a euphemism for "liability bait."

You may find a homeowner's insurance agent who puts his hands over his ears and babbles "la, la, la, la" every time you mention making money. Otherwise, if you insist on the agent acknowleging that you're making money with your cameras, you're going to need a commercial policy.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Anthony J. Bessey said:

My friend is a pro and is insured as such. I am basically looking
to obtain a policy that acknowledges that I make some money with my
gear although it is not what I depend on for a living. I just want
to make sure my stuff is covered for this kind of thing.

Click to expand...

Tony, your friend may still have some coverage on the MKII...some of these BOP policies have a limited off premises contents coverage that would cover theft up to XX% of the on premises coverage. Similar to the way a Homeowners policy works...but not all policies in all carriers.

If he just has a Floater and no business property/liability package...he may still have a contract that allows for automatic coverage of newly acquired equipment up to $XX value for up to XX days. However, those policies are usually the ones offered thru professional associations.

As to your problem...well most underwriters know that most pros start out as hobbyists that begin shooting friends' weddings, celebrations, portraits, kids, sports, etc. As they gain experience, knowledge and confidence they gradually become more of a business than a hobbyist. Underwriters know that no client is going to call them and say..."OK, start charging me more...I'm making money!"

Most can't change the contract to a business rate...they have to terminate the coverage...causing loss of a client...so why would they want to go there to begin with?

I'm not saying there isn't someone out there that will insure semi-pros...but I doubt it.

I've never seen it mentioned here...or on any photo forum and it has never been offered to me to sell as an agent. You might do a search of Fredmiranda.com...there seem to be more pros over there.

Good luck, but don't get your hopes up.
--
Joe Sesto

novrus said:

Wouldn't his car insurance cover such a theft?

Click to expand...

I hear that question all the time. "I want to report that my purse was stolen from my car."

Auto policies cover the auto and that which comes with/in it from the manufacturer, i.e., spare tire, jacks, mfrs. builtin first aid kit, etc. Some policies allow a few CD's, etc...but other than permanently attached equipment known to the carrier...that's usually it.

You may be surprised to learn that your Homeowner policy does not cover your auto if it is stolen from your garage...or your boat...or your RV...or your motorcycle...it's a HOME policy.

Just as the car is all that's covered under an AUTO policy.

However, some RV policies cover some contents of the RV...but that is usually limited to standard household items...dishes...linens...utensils...food, etc. Not Canon 1DsMKII's obviously.

--
Joe Sesto

EOSMan said:

About $8,000 worth. It cost me about $100 a year.
I just got the main stuff insured, body, L lenses and flashes.

Click to expand...

If you have a typical Home/condo/renter's policy...you have just SCHEDULED the main items on a FLOATER...and paid additional for them.

The other items are still COVERED under Coverage C of your contract...subject to certain off premises restrctions on a NAMED PERIL - INCLUDING THEFT basis...not ALL RISK...subject to a deductible. And believe it or not...may actually be better covered than the items on the FLOATER solely respecting the amount recoverable in a loss.

When you schedule an item on the FLOATER you stipulate a value...and that is usually the most that you will receive for that item.

Howeveer, suppose you bought a Gitzo tripod 10 years ago and scheduled it for $200...and it was stolen today. All you would get was $200. But if that same tripod costs $400 today...and your Coverage C - Personal Property is REPLACEMENT COST coverage...then you would get $400 subject to the deductible once it was REPLACED as unscheduled personal property.

Most carriers would give the higher amount if other policy limitations did not preclude it...even if scheduled. The deductible might not be a significant factor if several $1000's of other non-scheduled items were also taken...or burned, etc. You just can't have it both ways on the same item...either take the amount under the floater or under Coverage C, subject to the deductible...your choice.

The point is the other items are still insured* ...just not the same way.

In essence the floater is really only charging more for just waiving the deductible...providing All Risk coverage vs. Named Peril...and possibly giving you more off premises coverage. For that they charge you 1.25% of the value.

Add up all the Coverage A,C & D limits and divide the total premium (which includes the liability premiums) by the total of those values...see what you are already paying per $100 of property coverage...not very much, is it?

They'll sell you floaters all day for 1.25%,($1.25 per $100) or whatever, and never blink...you just transferred a minor increase in exposure to them at a fair rate...so you both win.

Just don't try to sneak your business equipment onto a home policy...you will become your own insurance company...most times.

--
Joe Sesto

cardfan said:

cardfan said:

For reference, my "Photographers Insurance Package" is $500 per
year, which covers roughly $18,000 of equipment (cameras,
computers, printers, office and studio stuff), plus the liability
and other insurance components.

Hope you find this useful.

• Frank

Click to expand...

Frank,
I hope that covers your homeowner's insurance as well !!!
$500 for $18000 of equipment is absurd.
I pay $165 for a million dollar liability umbrella on top of $650
for homeowners insurance on a 2000 Sq. Foot home. (Lost my real
home in a divorce)

Click to expand...

Umbrella policies are always cheap since the risk of claim is extremely low. Do you realize how unlikely it is for you to be liable for injury with damages approaching $1M? Even the most serious injuries rarely eclipse standard home owners limits. Moreover, umbrella policies are typically unnecessary since attornies rarely go after personal assets in typical cases where homeowners liability kicks in (slip and fall or a dog bite).

cardfan said:

The $650 covers $20,000 in Guns, $20,000 in electronics and an
additional $200,000 in standard contents. i.e. Sofa, Chair, Bed,
clothes, etc.

Click to expand...

Again, back to likelihood. The loss of contents in your home is basically limited to fire and theft. Insuring gear as a pro includes taking the gear on the road and handling it for many hours on a job (all 1,000 times more likely to result in loss than fire/theft of one's home). I personally don't know anyone who has lost their home to fire or lost personal goods to theft (house burglary). I do know many who have dropped their camera or had gear stolen outside the home. The odds increase dramatically that gear will be stolen or damaged when handled frequently outside the home as a pro (more opportunities and more distractions).

The rate quoted above is more than fair considering these risk AND all the other professional liability scenarios it covers.

Joe

Joe Marques said:

Umbrella policies are always cheap since the risk of claim is
extremely low. Do you realize how unlikely it is for you to be
liable for injury with damages approaching $1M? Even the most
serious injuries rarely eclipse standard home owners limits.

Click to expand...

I must disagree with your concept...my justification is 47 years in the insurance business 10 of which were as an underwriter for 2 international carriers.

First of all the key word is rarely** in the above sentence...and that is correct...but would you exchange $165 for $1,000,000 coverage if you had over $300,000 in net equity values. Bankruptcy laws are changing...and that may no longer be a haven for many.

Also, you keep talking about HOME losses...and the insignificant typical HOME liability loss. That's basically true...but why would you think that an UMBRELLA applies solely to HOME losses? Doesn't the term UMBRELLA convey the impression of broad coverage...general protection...encompassing?

It should... as the PRSONAL UMBRELLA is EXCESS over almost all personal (in this case) liability coverages...like AUTO...BOAT...MOTORCYCLE... HOME...RENTAL PROPERTIES...PERSONAL INJURY (and you may not even know what that is), etc. (Most exclude aviation exposures.)

If you've never heard of a loss exceeding $250,000 or $300,000 in injuries to a single person from any of the above...I suggest that you are a very ill informed person or live in some far off land called OZ.

Joe Marques said:

Moreover, umbrella policies are typically unnecessary since
attornies rarely go after personal assets in typical cases where
homeowners liability kicks in (slip and fall or a dog bite).

Click to expand...

True if all you have is the $100,000 basic coverage...and nothing else worth going after...like the $300,000 equity in your house...25% of your monthly income until the judgment amount is collected...plus interest...etc., etc., etc. Since when have attorneys been accused of having a heart...when they get 1/3rd or more of the take...totally naive!!

Haven't got a pot to pee in? Of course, they aren't going after you...but that isn't the person that needs an umbrella. It's the person with something to lose.

Joe Marques said:

Again, back to likelihood. The loss of contents in your home is
basically limited to fire and theft.

Click to expand...

Again you are partially correct...although there are some 16 or 17 named perils for contents. But experienced insurance people will tell you that far more frequent than fire is WATER DAMAGE from a variety of sources. In addition SMOKE damage does not always come from a FIRE on your own poroperty...believe it or not...and they can be very expensive. You have no idea where the various property losses come from...you are just spouting specious rhetoric with little or no knowledge of the industry...asset protection or litigation results.

Joe Marques said:

I personally don't know anyone who has
lost their home to fire or lost personal goods to theft (house
burglary).

Click to expand...

So that either means you don't know anybody...or you just got rescued from a desert island after 40 years.

Granted there aren't many major fire losses...but they are devastating and often compared SERIOUSLY to the most personal violation anyone has suffered short of ****. I've had a few clients that have suffered such losses over the years...and it is beyond your comprehension as to the sense of loss that they suffer. All the family memorabilia...all the treasured artifacts gathered from the many vacation trips...all the photos...all the special collections...stamps...baseball cards...teaspoons...you name it...irreplaceable.

Joe Marques said:

The rate quoted above is more than fair considering these risk AND
all the other professional liability scenarios it covers.

Click to expand...

Another psuedo attempt at advice...PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY is the term applied to policies that cover injury or damages due to mis/mal/non- feasance on the part of the insured...you might know it as MALPRACTICE...ERRORS AND OMISSIONS...ENGINEER/ARCHITECTS LIABILITY...it has nothing to do with the PREMISES/OPERATIONS of the business.

Find yourself a new soapbox to vent from...not all photopgraphers are insurance agents but some insurance agents are photographers. I for one will not allow misinformation about my chosen career field to distort the minds of others to the extent that your ill informed opinions do.

--
Joe Sesto

Joe Sesto said:

I'm not saying there isn't someone out there that will insure
semi-pros...but I doubt it.

I've never seen it mentioned here...or on any photo forum and it
has never been offered to me to sell as an agent. You might do a
search of Fredmiranda.com...there seem to be more pros over there.

Good luck, but don't get your hopes up.
--
Joe Sesto

Click to expand...

Joe,

If I have to buy a pro policy, so be it. While photography is my passion, it is not my work. I am self employed and have a pretty successful career, so not only do I understand the merits of professional coverage, but I can afford it. I am basically looking for companies that I should persue from insurance.

--
Tony
Canon Shooter
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/500087

Joe Sesto said:

Joe Marques said:

Umbrella policies are always cheap since the risk of claim is
extremely low. Do you realize how unlikely it is for you to be
liable for injury with damages approaching $1M? Even the most
serious injuries rarely eclipse standard home owners limits.

Click to expand...

I must disagree with your concept...my justification is 47 years in
the insurance business 10 of which were as an underwriter for 2
international carriers.

First of all the key word is rarely** in the above sentence...and
that is correct...but would you exchange $165 for $1,000,000
coverage if you had over $300,000 in net equity values. Bankruptcy
laws are changing...and that may no longer be a haven for many.

Also, you keep talking about HOME losses...and the insignificant
typical HOME liability loss. That's basically true...but why would
you think that an UMBRELLA applies solely to HOME losses? Doesn't
the term UMBRELLA convey the impression of broad coverage...general
protection...encompassing?

It should... as the PRSONAL UMBRELLA is EXCESS over almost all
personal (in this case) liability coverages...like
AUTO...BOAT...MOTORCYCLE... HOME...RENTAL PROPERTIES...PERSONAL
INJURY (and you may not even know what that is), etc. (Most exclude
aviation exposures.)

If you've never heard of a loss exceeding $250,000 or $300,000 in
injuries to a single person from any of the above...I suggest that
you are a very ill informed person or live in some far off land
called OZ.

Click to expand...

(Well, my very own pompous a$$ to deal with. It's been a while here at DPR but I'm up for the low level challenge.)

Didn't say never, said rarely (but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good preaching). In handling several hundred cases as an attorney (not an agent who thinks he is an attorney - I gave up law since I didn't like dealing with attorneys or worse yet know-it-all wanna-be's like you). Keep sipping the insurance industry kool aid, they need people like you who are blinded to reality.

I personally never saw a homeowners liability claim exclipsed the basic limits. Moreover, it is even more rare for an attorney to go after personal assets when add'l insurance isn't available. Despite their reputation, lawyers aren't in the business of displacing families from their homes in the pursuit of a damage award. While $165 is cheap it's still a "sale job" by you and your breatheren since it's basically unnecessary and $$$ in the bank for the insurance greed machine (who wouldn't take $165 per household to cover an extremely rare claim for damages). Of course you've spent most of your life selling people on something they might not need and then immediately jacking their rates when they use it (well your underwriters do this for you - you simply play along and drink the kool aid).

You know I wasn't on a soap box but your pompous a$$ response has reminded me why I dislike insurance companies so much (and wanna-be lawyers even more). Insurance is a false promise based on manipulation of statistics and data to drive the highest rates for the highest profits (the word FAIR profit being noticeably absent). As soon as someone makes a claim they are in jeopardy of a future rate increase (or cancellation of coverage). Great premise - you buy protection from risk then when the risk manifests intself you are charged more INDIVIDUALLY so you almost pay for your own loss entirely (NJ car ins. surcharges at times approach or exceed the damage claims paid by the insurance company).

I have had enough dealings with the industry professionally to conclude that it cares little about the customer (just look at loyalty data for the industry - it's not even on the map with "real" customer oriented companies). I respect insurance companies slightly more than tobacco companies so let's just agree to disagree.

Now go take a picture this is a photo forum not a public service ad for the insurance industry.

Joe