# Insurance is an accessory right? :P



## gregborkman (Aug 10, 2014)

I roll the dice here on whether insurance is really an accessory. But anywho, my question is about just that.

Do you insure your gear? Where did you go? How much does it cover? What does it cover? And how much does it cost yearly?


----------



## Eagle Eye (Aug 10, 2014)

I'm insured through USAA, $14,936 in coverage at $242 a year. Covers any loss, including theft. It doesn't cover normal wear and tear, acts of war, nuclear incidents, fungus, or intentional acts by the owner. It also does not cover the equipment at the time the equipment is being used for a paid assignment or going to or from a paid assignment. Insurance is well worth the cost, in my opinion.


----------



## gregborkman (Aug 10, 2014)

Eagle Eye said:


> I'm insured through USAA, $14,936 in coverage at $242 a year. Covers any loss, including theft. It doesn't cover normal wear and tear, acts of war, nuclear incidents, fungus, or intentional acts by the owner. It also does not cover the equipment at the time the equipment is being used for a paid assignment or going to or from a paid assignment. Insurance is well worth the cost, in my opinion.



I agree completely, which is why I'm looking into it now. Unfortunately, I don't have any family members who have USAA so I don't qualify for it. :/


----------



## monkey44 (Aug 10, 2014)

Some folks seem to think USAA is a huge discount on insurance ... Well, I disagree at least a little. When I applied for USAA Auto insurance, the quote was less than several other quotes, but when I compared, the coverage was less as well.

It seems to me, and I've compared often -- USAA maybe once was less, but now it's relatively similar prices if you go for equal coverage. At least within a few bucks. So, we go with the agent down the road from us, and for a few bucks a month, can walk in and talk to the owner of the insurance agency -- and have done it a few times and gotten direct answers. On USAA, we get wait on hold - then "we don't know, will get back to you", and don't. ETC.

So, I would get a few quotes and see what happens -- you can get riders on your home or renters policy.


----------



## RunAndGun (Aug 10, 2014)

Are you asking for personal or business? If it's just personal gear, it's probably covered by your homeowners(or renters) policy, unless it's an unusually large amount. My business policy doesn't require me to specify or serialize my gear(although having a list of everything with serial #'s is a good idea. Helped me immensely when I had a large, almost complete theft eight years ago). I just told them the dollar amount I wanted. Depending on your deductible and what is stolen, it may not be worth a claim(i.e. just a small lens), or it may save your @$$(i.e. an 800mm or in my case, I work in TV and even "inexpensive" things may be several $K).


----------



## gregborkman (Aug 10, 2014)

RunAndGun said:


> Are you asking for personal or business? If it's just personal gear, it's probably covered by your homeowners(or renters) policy, unless it's an unusually large amount. My business policy doesn't require me to specify or serialize my gear(although having a list of everything with serial #'s is a good idea. Helped me immensely when I had a large, almost complete theft eight years ago). I just told them the dollar amount I wanted. Depending on your deductible and what is stolen, it may not be worth a claim(i.e. just a small lens), or it may save your @$$(i.e. an 800mm or in my case, I work in TV and even "inexpensive" things may be several $K).



For business.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 10, 2014)

Excellent question. First, USAA has great service; we've had it for 30 years. Second, I itemize my gear by S/N and send them lists periodically. Third, there is some question how much pro use vs. hobby use excludes coverage. [Be very careful there, because insurance companies are NOT your friend (just like health insurance); if there is a big claim they may try to exclude you for pro usage.] But if you have any pro usage, then insurance clearly is a business expense. How much your deductible should be depends on your personal financial circumstances. You may want to look at NPPA's member options for all-risk insurance with Hayes.


----------



## gregborkman (Aug 10, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Excellent question. First, USAA has great service; we've had it for 30 years. Second, I itemize my gear by S/N and send them lists periodically. Third, there is some question how much pro use vs. hobby use excludes coverage. [Be very careful there, because insurance companies are NOT your friend (just like health insurance); if there is a big claim they may try to exclude you for pro usage.] But if you have any pro usage, then insurance clearly is a business expense. How much your deductible should be depends on your personal financial circumstances. You may want to look at NPPA's member options for all-risk insurance with Hayes.



Now, unfortunately, none of my family members can qualify me for USAA (I have no active or retired military family members who have USAA, for those who don't know the requirements) so that one is out of the question.


----------



## gbchriste (Aug 10, 2014)

I've been a USAA member since 1985. At that time USAA membership was limited to commissioned officers. In 1996 membership was opened to military personnel of all ranks.

Now before I start and get flamed all over the place, let me preface by saying I was an enlisted airman from 1977 until my commissioning as a 2nd Lieutenant in 1985. I was in a demanding and difficult career field and that period of my service is something I'm particularly proud of. So I have no class biases here.

Having said that, in my view, the quality of service offered by USAA has steadily declined since the membership changed. I've had occasion to finance and refinance homes as well as file several auto claims during those years and while the service started out on a stellar level that could not be matched, my recent transactions (a home refinance and auto claim) have left me feeling like I was dealing with a run-of-the mill insurance company in which the agents and adjusters were just in it for the paycheck rather than really interested in helping me. I won't go in to all the details of why.

Again, no class bias here, but simple actuarial science would dictate that when you take a risk pool that consists exclusively of older, degreed professionals (i.e. commissioned officers), and add to that an entirely new population that consists in large part of young kids, many who barely made it out of high school, with little to no prior work or professional experience (i.e. young enlisted troops), then the insurance risk profile of the entire pool is going to go up significantly. And when that happens, costs go up as well.

It's just a theory but I believe USAA is now reaping the harvest for the decision they made in changing the membership criteria. Costs go up, losses go up, and as a result, they can no longer be the premier service provider they once were.

This year I've actually started thinking about moving away from USAA to another insurance provider after 29 years of membership. I don't mind paying more money when I receive superior service but it's becoming somewhat debatable as to whether USAA can provide that superior level of service to justify any higher rates I might be paying.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 10, 2014)

gregborkman said:


> For business.



If it's for business, then get real business insurance.

My insurance broker is Tom C. Pickard http://www.tcpinsurance.com/ The insurance covers *owned* cameras/lights, *rented* cameras/lights, computers and *Liability Insurance* (includes liability for camera-copters at no additional cost).

With rental insurance you can rent that $10,000.00 lens without a deposit. If you have a business you need liability insurance.

There are other brokers who specialize in photography insurance, just Google to find them.


----------



## Freddie (Aug 11, 2014)

*No, it's a necessity.*

I also insure with Tom C. Pickard. We're headed to South Africa next month and a certificate of insurance has been sent to the rental agency there to cover the 600mm lens I'm renting for one part of the trip. My policy covers everything I need and more. It isn't as cheap as homeowner's insurance. I made a claim against my homeowner's insurance in 1996 for a large theft from a locked room at my work. That insurance covered the loss but the premiums zoomed up and no further claims would be accepted. I also have insurance for the loaner equipment from Canon that I'm fond of requesting. It also covers computer equipment and related expenses.


----------



## MDR (Aug 11, 2014)

One word of warning - if you think your camera is covered on your domestic insurance make sur ego ask specifically, many insurances have a very low limit on individual photographic pieces ($500-$1000) and on some polices if its above that price its completely uncovered (i.e. if its $1100 and has $800 limit then you get $0) Home insurance policys seem to have limited understanding of todays high value electronics.


----------



## gregborkman (Aug 11, 2014)

MDR said:


> One word of warning - if you think your camera is covered on your domestic insurance make sur ego ask specifically, many insurances have a very low limit on individual photographic pieces ($500-$1000) and on some polices if its above that price its completely uncovered (i.e. if its $1100 and has $800 limit then you get $0) Home insurance policys seem to have limited understanding of todays high value electronics.



Good to know. I'll make sure to ask.


----------



## tapanit (Aug 11, 2014)

gregborkman said:


> I roll the dice here on whether insurance is really an accessory. But anywho, my question is about just that.
> 
> Do you insure your gear? Where did you go? How much does it cover? What does it cover? And how much does it cost yearly?


I don't insure my gear at all. In general, insurance makes sense only if there are significant secondary consequences of the compensation in an anticipated loss scenario, like lost income because of lost work opportunities &c. On the average you're better off financially by not insuring and instead saving the premiums and/or taking a loan to replace lost equipment as needed.

Yes, I have broken and lost equipment over the years that insurance would've covered. But I've also done the math and know insurance would've ended up costing more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 11, 2014)

tapanit said:


> On the average you're better off financially by not insuring and instead saving the premiums and/or taking a loan to replace lost equipment as needed.
> 
> But I've also done the math and know insurance would've ended up costing more.



My math is a bit different. I take pictures lots of places – kids' school and sports, amusement parks (where the camera sometimes gets left in the bottom of a stroller), etc. The camera stays in the car when eating at a restaurant, etc. I hike with it on narrow trails through marshes. Lots of opportunities for theft/damage. 

When I go out with just the camera and only one of my lenses, depending on the lens a 'single loss' represents *30 – 67 years* of the premium I currently pay to have all my gear covered.


----------



## Valvebounce (Aug 11, 2014)

Hi Neuro. 
Wow that really puts it in to perspective, I would guess that makes it totally intangible to not have insurance! 

Cheers Graham.



neuroanatomist said:


> When I go out with just the camera and only one of my lenses, depending on the lens a 'single loss' represents *30 – 67 years* of the premium I currently pay to have all my gear covered.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 11, 2014)

My insurance bill just arrived at near $800 now (I have everything insured for full MSRP) the premiums have become more painful, but still much less than losing a single lens.


----------



## Roo (Aug 11, 2014)

When you have $10k+ worth of equipment its not an accessory. Here in Oz, I have mine listed separately on my house contents insurance for an extra $120pa. It covers me wherever I use the equipment for loss or damage and replaces new for old. This year my old 70-200 2.8 non IS had some moisture damage and was deemed uneconomical to repair so they replaced it with the 2.8 ISii  Today I was out taking skiing photos using it and the 24-105 and its good to know its all covered.


----------



## WilliamRuting (Aug 20, 2014)

I requested a quote from my homeowner's insurance agent (State Farm)...my homeowner's coverage only covered theft or loss due to theft, no accidental damage. I got a separate policy with full loss coverage for about $14,000 in gear for around $120.00/yr. It even provides coverage if I simply drop my camera and it is damaged. Seems worth it for me (amateur photographer). They also have a record of all my serial numbers in case of theft


----------



## RunAndGun (Aug 21, 2014)

My policy is "replacement cost", covers rental gear and errors & emissions and liability coverage of $2mil. This is a true business policy and my premium is about $1800-$1900/year. But well worth it when you look at the fact that a catastrophic theft would total more than a house. My first(and thankfully only) theft, which was largely _just_ lighting and grip, went well over $40K, not counting personal effects and damage to my vehicle. And that was almost a decade ago.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 21, 2014)

For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution. I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use. The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc. I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.


----------



## RunAndGun (Aug 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution. I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use. The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc. I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.



It's funny you mention websites. Several years ago I was shopping around insurance companies just to see what other rates were. One of the companies(the company I have my auto and home with) wanted to know if I had a website. They looked at them as a liability. In the end, I ended up staying with my long time business agent, partly because I have incredible rates and coverage and partly because when my "other" insurance company found out I was a TV photographer(the policy was essentially ready to go) they wouldn't have anything to do with covering me because they said the liability was too high(huh?).


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 25, 2014)

RunAndGun said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution. I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use. The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc. I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.
> ...


That's crazy but not too surprising. I've worked with actuaries at insurance companies before and they are actually a logical bunch, but the people that you deal with are often quite irrational. What I know for sure is that you need to be totally honest upfront because they'll find any excuse they can to avoid covering your claim, and the larger it is, the more they dig. 

That brings up another good point for everyone. Please make sure your insurance includes coverage for "mysterious disappearance". It's when your gear is stolen or lost without explanation. For example, you leave your gear in your unlocked car at a wedding reception, state park, etc., and minutes later you return and it's gone. You have no witnesses, no fingerprints, and there's no damage from a break in or something, and the police report indicates just that. These types of claims are considered a red flag for fraud and many policies exclude coverage altogether.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 25, 2014)

gbchriste said:


> Having said that, in my view, the quality of service offered by USAA has steadily declined since the membership changed.



I have the same experience with GEICO for my auto insurance. When I first became a customer, GEICO was limited to government employees. Because of the risk, the costs were low and the coverage was excellent. Then GEICO opened up to anyone and not only have their prices gone up but their service has gone down.


----------



## RunAndGun (Aug 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



I actually could rationalize the website part better than I could the TV part. Nowadays, it seems EVERYONE has a website for everything, but his was probably about 10 years ago… So many people in this business advertise/list their equipment packages on their sites, especially when it comes to the cameras du jour. You can get calls JUST because you own a certain piece of gear(C300 is a PERFECT example), whether you're any good or not. Even if you don't list your address, it doesn't take too long for someone that wants to know it, to find it. So as an insurance co(and sane person), I can see where a website could be considered a liability(and a shopping list for a thief). I just didn't get why they considered the liability higher/unmanageable for TV vs. Stills. Yes, our gear costs more(WAY more), but they said they were fine with the dollar amount of coverage I wanted. It was probably just ignorance/lack of understanding on the ins co's part, since they don't specialize in the field like the company I deal with for my business policy.


----------



## Halfrack (Aug 26, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> For those of you using your homeowners to cover your camera gear, I would recommend some caution. I have heard of several photographers whose insurance company have challenged their claims as commercial use. The companies point to having a website as advertisement of your business, etc. I ended up purchasing commercial insurance so I'm covered no matter what.



I feel the need to emphasize this more and more - if you insure your gear as part of your home owners policy, any claim is treated like a major claim against the home and can substantially increase your rates. Having a policy specific to high value gear makes sure that if something happens, you're going to be covered.


----------

