> >> Is there a company that will insure £1200 worth of camera gear all risks.
> >I
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> All insurers tend to look very good until you have to make a claim.
>Very good points, I've never had to make a claim for photographic gear so I
>have no experience of who is best. In fact I've only once claimed on
>insurance at all and then I was very disappointed, it was the Co-op years
>ago. It is sometimes difficult to decide between a cheap policy (and
>difficulty getting a payout which may or may not be needed) and spending
>more (and possibly not ever having to make a claim).
I don't know who is best either. I insure my gear on my business
insurance, which includes third party, public liability, professional
indemnity plus employer's liability insurance, so the cost of covering
my gear (all risks, new for old, replacement hire) is wrapped up in a
much larger figure. My insurer specialises in business policies, and
not specifically photography. I buy on quality of cover, not price,
as I know I am likely, on average, to make about one claim a year -
not necessarily for equipment.
Without wishing to condemn any particular insurer by name (for obvious
reasons) I would strongly reiterate that I would not touch any firm
that advertises by distributing leaflets in photo magazines.
Liz - 15 Mar 2006 17:55 GMT
>>Very good points, I've never had to make a claim for photographic gear so I
>>have no experience of who is best. In fact I've only once claimed on
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> as I know I am likely, on average, to make about one claim a year -
> not necessarily for equipment.
Mine is insured under my household policy, and the one time I had to
make a claim on photo equipment, they liaised with my travel insurer
behind my back and it all went very smoothly: they covered everything:
maybe the travel insurance paid the excess? (Travel insurance doesn't
cover the full amount of even my modest gear, but I have new-for-old,
worldwide cover in my house insurance). Mind you, they (CU) were the
insurers for my Union, so probably wanted to be careful to keep that
custom, but a few years later the Union unilaterally took it over
anyway. Union, pah! All they're interested in is Financial Services.
Slainte
Liz

Signature
Virtual Liz: http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
Photo blog of Make Povery History rally in Edinburgh 2 July 2005:
http://www.v-liz.com/g8rally/protest.htm
Tony Polson - 16 Mar 2006 01:04 GMT
>>>Very good points, I've never had to make a claim for photographic gear so I
>>>have no experience of who is best. In fact I've only once claimed on
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>custom, but a few years later the Union unilaterally took it over
>anyway. Union, pah! All they're interested in is Financial Services.
The household policy is the way to go for anyone who isn't a working
photographer. To be honest, I cannot understand why the original
poster doesn't have contents insurance. Even if he rents a place, and
even if it is fully furnished, he should have contents insurance if
only for his own personal belongings.
A basic contents policy with an all risks extension for personal use
of the photo gear will probably cost less than the pathetic cover from
companies advertising their policies in leaflets to be found in photo
magazines*. There will also be far less problems in making a
successful claim.
* Liz, I don't know how many times this point needs to be made before
people get it! And if they don't know which insurers I am referring
to, they should look further up the thread and think hard.
Tony Parkinson - 17 Mar 2006 08:25 GMT
> * Liz, I don't know how many times this point needs to be made before
> people get it! And if they don't know which insurers I am referring
> to, they should look further up the thread and think hard.
Tony, I'm sure people can figure it out Easily & Lazily
;^)
Tony Polson - 20 Mar 2006 00:51 GMT
>> * Liz, I don't know how many times this point needs to be made before
>> people get it! And if they don't know which insurers I am referring
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>;^)
Perhaps that hints at the root of the problem? It is 'easier and
lazier' to insure with the company that gives you a free leaflet that
falls out of the magazine without any user input.
So I suppose the 'easily and lazily insured' deserve all they don't
get when they make a claim.
;-)