Camera insurance in the UK - recommendations please

[Builder]

All,

Can anyone recommend decent camera insurance for travel ? My gear list is as follows:

• D300s
• Tamron 17-50
• Tamron 90 Macro
• Nikon 70-300
• Nikon 50 f/1.4
• Nikon SB-800
• Lumiquest SBIII
• Feisol CT-3442 tripod and head

I'm looking for insurance that will cover my equipment for loss or damage under the following conditions:

• While in a secured baggage compartment (airline, car boot, hotel room)
• Mugging / theft with violence

I've looked at http://www.eandl.co.uk/camera-insurance but their exclusions / conditions make them useless to me due to the following statement:

"Storage compartments in vehicles must not be accessible from the driver’s area; or opened by electrical or mechanical devices within the passenger section; or accessible by removal of a panel, shelf or partition."

I don't know of any car made within the last 10 years that doesn't have a way to access the boot from inside the car (either via a latch that opens it, or fold down seats in the rear, both of which are covered above).

My main destination is South Africa, but I also get robbed in Spain and America on occasion

 

[Confused of Malvern]

Is this gear for professional use or just private/amateur use? If the latter, then i would have thought the best approach would be to ask your insurer to add it to the 'all risks' section of your household contents insurance - this will cover taking the equipment abroad when on holiday.

--
Confused of Malvern
'The greatest fool can ask more than the wisest man can answer'

 

[Builder]

It's for amateur use, but despite paying a small fortune to have it added to my householder insurance, when it was all stolen from the locked boot of a car, I found that the insurer (Barclays) excluded 'secure baggage compartments' from their cover.

I lost all of my camera gear and my laptop that day, and didn't get paid out for any of it.

That's why I'm now looking for more dedicated cover, in the hopes that this provides cover while in hotel rooms or the locked boot of a car.

 

[A620er]

when it was all stolen from the locked boot of a car, I found that the insurer (Barclays) excluded 'secure baggage compartments' from their cover.

Hi Builder, reading this I thought I'd better check my contents cover; fortunately this type of situation would be covered.

I'm at a bit of a loss why Barclays wouldn't accept your claim. Clearly I don't know the wording on your policy but Barclay's current wording says "from a locked and concealed boot, concealed luggage compartment or closed glove compartment of a securely locked vehicle which has been broken into by using force and violence"

Good luck with finding suitable insurance & more importantly ... let's hope you never have to use it again!

 

[Builder]

Even our most recent renewal by Barclays was confusing on this. Our cover letter implied that it would be covered, but under exceptions in the policy, there was wording that negates this.

I'd have to dig out the policy to get the exact wording, but it excludes any secure baggage compartment that can be accessed by operating a mechanical or electrical device in the driver's area or any compartment that can be accessed by removing a panel or cover (e.g. a parcel shelf or seats).

Sadly, I either will have to use insurance again, or I'll have to stop taking photographs in the places I go. I can't remember the last trip to SA that I had where I didn't have something stolen

 

[tonywh]

if you check dedicated photographic insurance for pro's some of those have clauses about equipment left in vehicles. I have always found specialised photographic insurance over priced and full of get out clauses.

tony

 

[Builder]

The insurance at http://www.eandl.co.uk/camera-insurance is aimed at pros, and they actually have an option that costs extra for unattended vehicle insurance.

Unfortunately, after taking your money, they then have a get-out clause that renders it worthless in any modern vehicle as quoted in my first post.

If I could find insurance that would actually provide cover under these circumstances, I wouldn't consider it a waste of money. I've spent the last 1.6 years building my collection back up, and it's still full of compromises from what I used to have. Every time I take something out of the bag, I can't help but think about the item it replaced, and how rubbish it is compared to that. The 70-300 just does not compare to the 70-200 f/2.8. The tamron 90 is nice, but nowhere near the Nikon I lost. The Feisol is 'fine' but not a patch on the Gitzo / Markins combo. And all of that is because of a getout clause in my householder insurance policy.

 

[aardvark7]

I use Aaduki, as a professional, and the cover you want is included. Basically it covers every eventuality, including travel for less than a month. However, I don't know if they regard amateurs in the same way.

Technically, it is also covered by my home insurance (AXA) when left in the boot, although I haven't read every last clause.

Both of these are very reasonable in price and actually add up to less than I pay for my car insurance (despite the fact I have a perfect driving record - not even a parking ticket!)

Previously, I was with Glover & Howe, although their prices went too high for some reason, even though I hadn't made any claims.

I would recommend trying all three.

--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.

 

[Builder]

I use Aaduki, as a professional, and the cover you want is included. Basically it covers every eventuality, including travel for less than a month. However, I don't know if they regard amateurs in the same way.

Technically, it is also covered by my home insurance (AXA) when left in the boot, although I haven't read every last clause.

You might want to check your AXA policy more closely. I've checked AXA, Lloyds and Barclays and they all have weasel words that excludes valuables in unattended vehicles.

 

[chris_uk]

I wish you luck in your search but I think you will find it nearly impossible to obtain the insurance you want. I'd get a few quotes and rather than buy the insurance, put the money aside in case the worst happens.

Be careful but don't stop taking pictures!

 

[SeeRoy]

... when it was all stolen from the locked boot of a car, I found that the insurer (Barclays) excluded 'secure baggage compartments' from their cover.

I lost all of my camera gear and my laptop that day, and didn't get paid out for any of it.

I use a company called Towergate who specialise in camera insurance both pro and am. Never having made a claim I can't say how they would respond. However your experience, as mentioned above, doesn't surprise me. The insurance business is like most aspects of the "financial services" industry - at retail consumer level anyway - basically a gigantic legalised fraud.

When I renewed my insurance, with the above company after about 4 years cover, I asked them if, having made no claims, there would be any no claims discount. Apparently "it doesn't work like that". So I asked what would be the consequence of my having to make claim - ie would such an unfortunate event impact on future premiums? Er, probably.

The size of the premium penalty would depend on the size of the claim (or looked at another way the unluckier I might be, the bigger the punishment). So I asked what the relationship between the level of any claim and the consequential premium increase might be. But they wouldn't tell me that although I'm certain it must be precisely quantified. Trade secret...

Like most people I've been paying many, many insurance premiums for most of my life. I dread to think how much they have cost me. Any claims I have ever made are relatively trivial and on more than one occasion I have abandoned the claim through sheer disgust at the obfuscating tactics that the insurance industry utilises to repel legitimate as well as fraudulent claims.

I'm currently paying for health insurance. I had to make a relatively small claim on this a couple of years ago. The company I use, let's call them "Prudent Health", exhibited everything that appals me about insurance companies. Fantastic obfuscation. Possibly they believe that their customers frequently induce health crises that almost kill them in order to defraud their insurers. Perhaps some do.

As for car insurance, the fiction of "competition" and "choice" is laughable. A huge proportion of the cost is a consequence of the massive superstructure of marketing operations offering identical policies which are frequently effectively shared with their nominal competitors. The ultimate cover, in the UK at least, is probably afforded by no more than two or three insurers. This probably isn't unique to car insurance.

Still, these industries, having robbed us blind without penalty and having almost brought the entire western economic system to its knees will no doubt be allowed to do it all over again, safe in the knowledge that the bread and circuses of popular media (owned by their colleagues) will manage to keep most of the population hypnotised whilst their pockets are picked.

Roy

 

[Donny_B]

... when it was all stolen from the locked boot of a car, I found that the insurer (Barclays) excluded 'secure baggage compartments' from their cover.

I lost all of my camera gear and my laptop that day, and didn't get paid out for any of it.

I use a company called Towergate who specialise in camera insurance both pro and am. Never having made a claim I can't say how they would respond. However your experience, as mentioned above, doesn't surprise me. The insurance business is like most aspects of the "financial services" industry - at retail consumer level anyway - basically a gigantic legalised fraud.

When I renewed my insurance, with the above company after about 4 years cover, I asked them if, having made no claims, there would be any no claims discount. Apparently "it doesn't work like that". So I asked what would be the consequence of my having to make claim - IE would such an unfortunate event impact on future premiums? Er, probably.

The size of the premium penalty would depend on the size of the claim (or looked at another way the unluckier I might be, the bigger the punishment). So I asked what the relationship between the level of any claim and the consequential premium increase might be. But they wouldn't tell me that although I'm certain it must be precisely quantified. Trade secret...

Like most people I've been paying many, many insurance premiums for most of my life. I dread to think how much they have cost me. Any claims I have ever made are relatively trivial and on more than one occasion I have abandoned the claim through sheer disgust at the obfuscating tactics that the insurance industry utilises to repel legitimate as well as fraudulent claims.

I'm currently paying for health insurance. I had to make a relatively small claim on this a couple of years ago. The company I use, let's call them "Prudent Health", exhibited everything that appals me about insurance companies. Fantastic obfuscation. Possibly they believe that their customers frequently induce health crises that almost kill them in order to defraud their insurers. Perhaps some do.

As for car insurance, the fiction of "competition" and "choice" is laughable. A huge proportion of the cost is a consequence of the massive superstructure of marketing operations offering identical policies which are frequently effectively shared with their nominal competitors. The ultimate cover, in the UK at least, is probably afforded by no more than two or three insurers. This probably isn't unique to car insurance.

Still, these industries, having robbed us blind without penalty and having almost brought the entire western economic system to its knees will no doubt be allowed to do it all over again, safe in the knowledge that the bread and circuses of popular media (owned by their colleagues) will manage to keep most of the population hypnotised whilst their pockets are picked.

Roy

ABSOULUTLEY BRILLIANTLY PUT ROY

 

[A620er]

legalised fraud.

No wonder you are having problems if you are making statements like this which are, by definition, nonsense

When I renewed my insurance, with the above company after about 4 years cover, I asked them if, having made no claims, there would be any no claims discount

Just because motor insurance typicaly offers an NCD doesn't mean that others do or should.

So I asked what the relationship between the level of any claim and the consequential premium increase might be. But they wouldn't tell me that although I'm certain it must be precisely quantified. Trade secret...

You probably won't believe me but it is very difficult to quantify the effect one simple change in a one variable will have. Many types of insurance factor in many many variables & it is the combination of these which generates the premium

Like most people I've been paying many, many insurance premiums for most of my life. I dread to think how much they have cost me.

Other than compulsary motor ins, your choice

Any claims I have ever made are relatively trivial and on more than one occasion I have abandoned the claim through sheer disgust at the obfuscating tactics that the insurance industry utilises to repel legitimate as well as fraudulent claims.

Can't argue that. Some ins cos do make claiming difficult

Possibly they believe that their customers frequently induce health crises that almost kill them in order to defraud their insurers. Perhaps some do

Ins fraud is endemic in UK

As for car insurance, the fiction of "competition" and "choice" is laughable.

The choice is driven by consumer demand, which in UK means the comparison web-sites. The GBP will search & search for hours for the cheapest price ignoring the policy content. There are policies with better cover but these cost more. You pays your money ......

A huge proportion of the cost is a consequence of the massive superstructure of marketing operations

No idea of the percentage of premiums that are spent by the many insurance cos on marketing; neither I suspect, do you. But as you've got a (very liklely genuine) gripe, why not slag them off over fictitious behaviour, eh?

Still, these industries, having robbed us blind

IE you chose to buy

and having almost brought the entire western economic system to its knees

now come on, not even Robert Preston blamed the current economic problems on ins cos!

 

[Chas P]

My broker, Saffron Insurance, use E&L Insurance (entertainment and leisure)

I have £4k of gear insured including attended in transit, unattended in vehicle, worldwide, 3rd party etc etc...

I specifically asked for cover should my car be broken into. I think I'm covered. It costs £150 a year.
Good luck.

EDIT: I didn't put 2 and 2 together when reading yr OP - I just found their exclusions PDF... Need to talk to Saffron about it in the morning - you may have saved me a royal headache, thanks.
--
My Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8189967@N04/

 

[stucs201]

Try photoguard. Just re-read mine and all seems ok.

 

[aardvark7]

It was described as 'legalised fraud' because the insurance industry purports to provide full and equitable protection against loss, using the contributions of the many to offset the losses of the few.

However, what actually happens, almost without exception, is that every insured person will cover their own losses, even if the balance sheet goes against the insurance company for a period.

They further bias this by their 'weasel words', so that any hope of a fair outcome is frequently regarded as unlikely.

The law allows it, but what is apparently offered rarely seems to be accurate; hence 'legalised fraud'.

That such a position exists is, for a great part, responsible for many of the so-called 'fraudulent claims'. The customer sees the only way to recoup the already significant money spent, the excess charged and the expected increase in premium by inflating the claim by any means possible, whether adding fictitious items or injuries.

Of course, we all have the option of whether to buy, or not, but insurance relies on our fears and the knowledge that we could not replace everything in the case of disaster.

As to where it is not optional, even the industry's own statistics don't make much sense: a young driver may find himself asked to pay the ludicrous sum of £20,000 a year, when apparently the average claim by a new driver is £5,000.

They certainly do not do anything to endear themselves to people, especially when one notices that many of the richest companies and plenty of the slickest offices are insurance based.
--
2011 : My new year's resolution -
To be positive, not negative.
To help, not to hinder.
To praise, not to criticise.

 

[Builder]

My broker, Saffron Insurance, use E&L Insurance (entertainment and leisure)

I have £4k of gear insured including attended in transit, unattended in vehicle, worldwide, 3rd party etc etc...

I specifically asked for cover should my car be broken into. I think I'm covered. It costs £150 a year.
Good luck.

EDIT: I didn't put 2 and 2 together when reading yr OP - I just found their exclusions PDF... Need to talk to Saffron about it in the morning - you may have saved me a royal headache, thanks.

I'd be VERY interested to hear what they come back with, given that exclusion on the E and L site.

 

[A620er]

It was described as 'legalised fraud' because the insurance industry purports to provide full and equitable protection against loss, using the contributions of the many to offset the losses of the few.

I suspect it was described as "legalised fraud" because the poster wished to suggest that Ins Cos offered a product which turned out to be not as described

However, what actually happens, almost without exception, is that every insured person will cover their own losses

err? yes. As you say "using the contributions of the many to offset the losses of the few" - this is the whole concept of insurance

They further bias this by their 'weasel words',

It never ceases to maintain my faith in the intelligence level of some of the GBP that they prefer to use emotional nonsensical words & phrases rather than state facts. Please give me some examples

The law allows it, but what is apparently offered rarely seems to be accurate

Examples, please

That such a position exists is, for a great part, responsible for many of the so-called 'fraudulent claims'.

No. Criminals are responsible for their actions

The customer sees the only way to recoup the already significant money spent, the excess charged and the expected increase in premium by inflating the claim by any means possible, whether adding fictitious items or injuries.

No. They see it as an EASY way to take money that doesn't belong to them & use your thought process as an excuse.

insurance relies on our fears and the knowledge that we could not replace everything in the case of disaster.

Err? Yes. That's why people choose to buy insurance.

As to where it is not optional, even the industry's own statistics don't make much sense: a young driver may find himself asked to pay the ludicrous sum of £20,000 a year, when apparently the average claim by a new driver is £5,000.

Well I must admit that I have come across some high quotes for young drivers but £20k? I'll take your word for it ............. oh hold on .... you said "apparently" Another one on the "let's make up a fictitious attack on insurance cos" bandwagon; yawn!

 

[Builder]

Thanks. Their general guidelines looked good until I started looking at the specific exclusions in the policy. At that point, it didn't match any of my requirements.

They don't cover theft of checked baggage from an airline:

We regret that loss of baggage containing your equipment is not covered with Photoguard. You can ask us for individual advice if in any doubt about your own set of personal circumstances.

With Virgin Atlantic's aggressive 6KG limit, I can't carry my gear as cabin baggage, so I need to cover it in the hold. My bag without the flash, the tripod, or any batteries weighs in at 6.1KG. And AFAIK, you're not allowed to transport rechargeable batteries as hold luggage, so they need to go back in.

(aside: Virgin clearly have very unsafe aircraft. BA, SAA and even EasyJet allow for up to 15KG hand luggage, but Virgin restrict you to 6KG for safety reasons. Given the lack of issues that have resulted from these other airline's limits, one has to assume Virgin is dangerous in some way )

Also, there's this :

2.1 Theft of the Property Insured (when not from a vehicle)
.
.
Theft when the Property Insured is Unattended

I need my cover to cover items in a hotel or similar environment when I'm not around. I can't really carry my gear everywhere with me when on vacation.

 

[Builder]

Well I must admit that I have come across some high quotes for young drivers but £20k? I'll take your word for it ............. oh hold on .... you said "apparently" Another one on the "let's make up a fictitious attack on insurance cos" bandwagon; yawn!

I have personally received a quote of £11,000 for a £2,000 motorcycle. At the time I received this quote, I was 34, had a clean license for 7 years and 1 year NCB / NCD but one theft in my history. That wasn't an outlier either as a number of insurance companies quoted me between £9k and £10k for that vehicle.