Gear Insurance. Any recommendations?

[mydarkroom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica gear is not cheap, we all know that. I am starting to get worried about having my camera and lens stolen and not having any kind of insurance. I know that Home Insurance usually covers camera etc, but when dealing with high prices it can be a problem. Also, if the gear is stolen while traveling, it is usually not covered.

 

I know of a company in Canada (Harvard Western) that provides Insurance for professional photographers. That includes not only gear, but also have a General Commercial and Professional Liability. As a non-pro I would not be interested on the full package but I still want coverage for my gear.

 

I would like to know how many of you have insurance for your camera gear. What company do you use and recommend. If possible, comment on the price / year for the insurance.

 

Thank you.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Prime]

I have my gear (Leica M-E + 35 summarit) insured through a insurance company that is specialised on photographers. I got a deal through a membership on a swedish photo website. I pay 280 dollars/year for the insurance, and it covers pretty much anything. The deductible is around 500 bucks.

 

Maybe you should check out if there's any photo club that might have negotiated a sweet deal for their members?

[dave_d]

I have Travelers business insurance for professional photographers that covers my gear. The cost is dependent on the value of all your gear and how much liability coverage you require. For me the cost is about $700 a year with $1 million liability. This is a business expense since I work professionally. Every insurance company offers different coverage so be sure to shop around or go to an independent agent that represents several companies. If you are not in business as a photographer, the cheapest coverage is going to be a camera floater on your home owners policy. If your home owners or renters insurance company won't provide the coverage you need then shop around to other companies. Be aware that some business policies for photographers will not cover your gear or computer outside the studio or out of country without a rider to the policy so be sure you know what you are getting before you buy.

[Jeff S]

Policies, practices and rates vary by country as well as by company. In the US it's possible to get a rider to a home policy (exists apart from general home contents coverage). I've always taken advantage of this to insure photographic items as well as other special valuables, using several different companies over the years.

 

My current company allows me to itemize each piece of gear based on my stated replacement value, and covers all loss or damage (up to 50% beyond these established values, without my having to continually update coverage, in the event replacement costs rise over time, or if models are discontinued and upgraded). There is no deductible and no exclusions, including my own stupidity. I currently pay about $350 annually for roughly $25k coverage.

 

A no-brainer for peace of mind, and far less than I spend on various post-processing materials. I consider it a built-in cost for the hobby.

 

Jeff

[flyalf]

All insurance is just betting against yourself. Add money to a savings account instead, then you are not paying for insurance companies salaries and others frauds. On long term you will profit.

[Jeff S]

All insurance is just betting against yourself.

 

Until I learn how to weatherproof my M, fix all broken parts (like M8 LCD screens) that aren't covered by warranty, stop all thieves (despite my best precautions), etc, I'm hedging on far more than my own behaviors; I'm taking into account company issues, societal issues and more.

 

And I do put money into savings as well. But in this case the insurance is so cheap relative to the potential loss, that the expenditures outweigh the alternative. (If I replace one $7000 camera over a 20 year period, I've made up the cost of all insurance on that and all my other gear as well. And in this case, even if the camera price escalates by up to 50% at any time in that period, my insurance automatically pays full replacement cost. Show me a savings account that will earn 50% in the near term.) YMMV.

 

Jeff

[dave_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Insurance of any kind always seems like a waste of money until something happens. If you paid for it you will be thankful you did. If not you will wish you had.

[flyalf]

Insurance of any kind always seems like a waste of money until something happens. If you paid for it you will be thankful you did. If not you will wish you had.

 

You are actually paying for Jeff S (sorry Jeff). It is a waste! And you need to average cost over a lifetime. If something happens you bear the cost youself. Rather that than paying for Jeff (sorry again) and the costs of insurance company as well.

 

Apologies for OT, promise to stop.

[Jeff S]

Not all insurance is created equally. If mine had cost substantially more, or if the terms and conditions for payout were more restrictive, I would have declined and instead put the money in the bank. I never pay for extended warranties on appliances, for instance, because the math doesn't add up.

 

You make a blanket statement for all people and all insurance. I only make a case for my own situation given the facts presented, not for others in general. And that's my point to the OP (which is right on topic), and that is that it's wise to check around and make a determination based on one's own situation...and one's own risk tolerance.

 

Some insurance is required by law (e.g., for drivers in some states). Don't think I would recommend your approach in those cases.

 

Jeff

[dave_d]

I trust that Jeff will be careful with his Leica and that he will do what he can to prevent loss. If something does happen to Jeff's camera, I am happy that I contributed to a fellow photographers replacement camera.

[Jeff S]

Keep in mind that prices of most all goods reflect overall costs of doing business, including those related to failures, product returns, etc. We each subsidize things that don't just happen to us; insurance is not unique in this regard. There is no free lunch.

 

Jeff

[harald_l]

I have also looked into insurance providers that specialize on camera equipment but ended up doing a nice sideletter with my Home Insurance Company that should cover everything I need with good terms and conditions since they are also interested in keeping me as a customer for Home Insurance itself ...

[efreed2754]

Hi. While generally don't like warranty insurance, do purchase extra coverage for my Leica equipment that is used for travel.

 

Chartis (AIG) provides all our home and car insurance. We have a $10,000 deductible per loss so not too good for Leica's or engagement rings.

 

Anyway a floater covers loss like theft, damage, mysterious disappearance with no deductible. Just provide a list of items with serial numbers and my value and that's it

 

Have had two claims, one a scratch on my M9 rear screen and the second for damage when the camera and lens jumped off my monopod. Chartis covered with no hassle and accepted Leica's costs.

 

In Santa Barbara now so don't know the cost, but it is very reasonable and provides peace of mind.

 

Get a quote from your broker and decide if it works for you.

[kdriceman]

I have a personal articles rider with my homeowners insurance (for art, jewelry, hearing aids [yes... as expensive as an M9 and easier to lose/ruin] etc). When I want to add photo equipment I simply send them a copy of the invoice (or other document of valuation) and they add it to the rider. Very reasonable cost if added as part of your homeowners policy.

[kdriceman]

All insurance is just betting against yourself. Add money to a savings account instead, then you are not paying for insurance companies salaries and others frauds. On long term you will profit.

 

This is a fallacy. By pooling premiums and claims in very large portfolios insurance companies can provide protection much less expensively than an individual can by saving on his own... Even accounting for salaries, fraud, etc... And with the added benefit of providing a timely financial recovery (if my camera gets stolen the day after I insure it, insurance will replace it).

 

Insuring my M9 + 50 Summilux a $10,000 value) costs me about $70/yr. if I were to 'save' for that ... Even giving myself a 5% return on my savings... It would take me 42 years to have saved up enough to replace this combination should it get stolen or accidentally dropped off a bridge.

 

Now, it is a personal decision whether you want to insure your gear. It does cost money... But insurance and savings are really not comparable options.

[efreed2754]

+1 with kdriceman. Insurances with high frequency and low severity you are closer to trading dollars.

 

Floater policies are examples of low frequency (occurs rarely) and high severity (payouts are large). Buying insurance in these latter situations is an easier choice as premiums are relatively low compared to the payouts.

 

Hope that helps!

[wparsonsgisnet]

My equipment is worth more than both my cars put together. So, putting money in the bank is problematic.

 

I carry a commercial policy that covers my gear as well as rented gear and costs about $500/year. It covers travel overseas, damage, theft, loss, breakage, and provides endless nights of sleep. It comes with a $500 deductible (that helps you pay attention).

 

I have all my photo (Leica) gear and video gear covered.

 

Highly recommended.

[flyalf]

...By pooling premiums and claims in very large portfolios insurance companies can provide protection much less expensively than an individual can by saving on his own... Even accounting for salaries, fraud, etc...

 

One control question: where do you assume the insurance company salaries and profit to owners come from, the Santa? Im sorry to break your illusions (not about Santa). Its you that pays for your damaged or lost goods plus keeping the insurance company alive. If you run the average risks like an average customer you will be better off by self-assurance. This is because you are paying for overhead induced by the insurance company plus their profit.If your risks are lower you are even worse off. If your risks are higher the insurance company will even this by higher rates.

 

Secondly, you are not buying protection. However much you pay in insurance the risks for an accident are the same. There are ways of reducing these risks, but none of these involves an insurance company.

 

Lets do the simplest scenario: You newer loose or damage any photo equipment. What do you think is most profitable for you. Money in the bank or in the insurance company?

 

The next scenario is to base upon you experiences so far and extrapolate. Lets say that you have claimed $/year in refund from insurance. Average that on a lifetime and do the maths yourself ;-)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wbabbott3]

I have routinely insured my Leica gear here in California as Scheduled Personal Property as part of my Safeco homeowners' insurance. My practice was and is to insure any item with a replacement cost over about $2500. I have vacillated between $2000 and $3000 and I self-insure all the rest. My main worry was always loss while travelling, and what it would cost me to lose my entire bag. Fortunately, I have never had any problems while traveling.

 

The insurance costs several hundred US dollars per year. I am strictly an amateur.

 

I bought an S2 and two lenses and about six months later tripped over a planter I did not see, cut my head badly on the sidewalk and damaged the S2 and the 70mm lens when they hit the pavement before I did.

 

The bill to repair them was close to $5000 and Safeco reimbursed me with no problems at all.

 

I believe that one reimbursement was equal to or more than all the insurance has cost me over many years.I am a believer in insurance when the probability of loss is small but the consequences are large, just like the theory says.

 

Bill

 

P.S. The wound healed and I had no concussion.

[kdriceman]

One control question: where do you assume the insurance company salaries and profit to owners come from, the Santa? Im sorry to break your illusions (not about Santa). Its you that pays for your damaged or lost goods plus keeping the insurance company alive. If you run the average risks like an average customer you will be better off by self-assurance. This is because you are paying for overhead induced by the insurance company plus their profit.If your risks are lower you are even worse off. If your risks are higher the insurance company will even this by higher rates.

 

Secondly, you are not buying protection. However much you pay in insurance the risks for an accident are the same. There are ways of reducing these risks, but none of these involves an insurance company.

 

Lets do the simplest scenario: You newer loose or damage any photo equipment. What do you think is most profitable for you. Money in the bank or in the insurance company?

 

The next scenario is to base upon you experiences so far and extrapolate. Lets say that you have claimed $/year in refund from insurance. Average that on a lifetime and do the maths yourself ;-)

 

Yes, of course the salaries come from premiums which come from the insured. But that is not what I said. Let me rephrase: Because they can provide protection much more efficiently, they can charge reasonable premiums, pay all their claims, cover fraud AND pay their salaries.

 

And while the risks may be the same whether you pay for insurance or not, you are, in fact, buying protection - financial protection - when you buy insurance.

 

Your first scenario simply implies that the person is lucky… so far. It does nothing to address the risks and financial consequences of a loss. It is an irrelevant example.

 

But, let’s expand on your second scenario . Based on my experience, I have a camera stolen or damaged by weather or something else once every 7 or 8 years. Let’s assume I’m worse than the average person and on average you can expect to have a total loss once in 10 years. And let’s say we have Leica M9’s/M’s which cost $7,000.

 

We can now say we have a 10% chance of a loss each year. We can save $700 each year and incorrectly assume we are covered. For example, we could have a camera stolen in the 3rd year… We would have to pay the $7,000 to replace it, but we would have only saved $2,100 (at $700/yr), but you will say, “no problem. I’m saving over 10 years and I still have 7 to go to pay for this camera”. But you still have a 10% chance of loss every year (remember you said above that “However much you pay in insurance the risks for an accident are the same”. At 10% risk per year with 7 years to go the laws of probability and statistics say that you still have 52.17% chance of loss over that 7 years at 10% / year. YIKES!!!

Now, the insurance company has the luxury of looking at it differently. Let’s say they insure 10,000 cameras. Because this number is sufficiently large, probability and statistics tells us that at 10% probability of loss, there will be almost exactly 1,000 claims/yr – $70,000 that they have to pay out. And it will be the same the next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is still $700/camera insured per year, but they know that is it for every year. A rational camera user seeking financial protection from loss who did the math in the previous paragraph would be willing to pay more than $700 / yr for protection because he is uncertain of what his actual loss will be.

The point is that if you have a savings account as your insurance you can do nothing about the uncertainty of being unlucky. You may have no losses in a 10 year period ($0 exposure) or you might have 3 or 4 ($21,000 - $28,000)… and luck does play into it.

The insurance company, on the other hand… because they are managing risk on a large portfolio, they can virtually eliminate uncertainty and better quantify the actual risk (is it 10% or 9%?), making them much, much more efficient than you and your savings account. Thus, they can provide ‘financial’ protection much cheaper than you and your savings account.

Now, they still charge money for the service and we each have to decide how careful or lucky we think we are and is it worth it. But it is a mathematical fact that they can provide financial protection more efficiently… Just because one likes to gamble doesn’t make him efficient.