Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Camera & lens insurance

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Malcolm Stewart - 29 Dec 2006 00:16 GMT
My normal policy is to not insure my photo gear.  (Extensive collection
built up over many years, and with both old and the latest pro DSLR gear.
Usage varies from week to week.)

Others have advised that I should insure my gear.  Chose what looked like a
good website for camera gear, thought their premiums were worth considering,
and then downloaded their small print.  It states absolutely categorically
that gear will only be insured, whilst travelling, if left in the boot of a
car which has a boot compartment which is locked separately to the car
interior and that there is no access from the passenger compartment into the
boot. (Not quite like having a secured safe in the boot, but not far off.)

All my cars since about 1980, including saloons, have had features allowing
relatively easy access to the boot, and my present vehicle is an estate, so
obviously that's out.

Can anyone point me to a policy without this restriction?

Many thanks
Signature

M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

David Kilpatrick - 29 Dec 2006 00:50 GMT
> My normal policy is to not insure my photo gear.  (Extensive collection
> built up over many years, and with both old and the latest pro DSLR gear.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Can anyone point me to a policy without this restriction?

Since 1988, keeping records after moving to Scotland, I have paid
insurances companies about £70,000 in car, business and equipment, house
and domestic insurance premiums. I have claimed something around £10000
in the same period (nearly all on car damage and only once paid for by
myself - other incidents being claimed from the other party), and
several important claims have been refused. I finally changed my office
and house cover from Norwich Union and Guardian Select after my offices
(first floor) suffered a loo cistern which spontaneously cracked apart
in the night, flooding through the floor and bringing down two layers of
ceilings in the house (ground foor). Cover was refused because an
insured party owning two properties separately covered cannot claim
against themselves! The entire property is now ensured for half the
price by AXA, in one piece, to avoid any such weaseling out of cover.

I now cover only essential items (things which I could not replace
without going bankrupt, or liabilities I could not meet). If I had a
Hasselblad H3D I'd insure it. Canon EOS 1Ds MkII kit, maybe. Sub-£1000
DSLRs and lenses generally worth £200-500 each, no way. The things you
MUST insure against are third part or public liabilities and legal
action. Those can cost you millions - your life and everything which
goes with it. There's very little photo gear you can't find a
replacement for at modest cost, and my view is to see any losses as
their traded-in value - get a better model instead!

I'm already about £10,000 up on NOT paying out insurance for such things
since the above incident and while I have not put this money away in a
fund separately, when I accidentally broke a DSLR during cleaning (not
insured) I just paid £600 for another body without worrying.

The car thing is complex. We have an insurance scheme for the former
Minolta Club run by Glover & Howe of Colchester, and it covers concealed
equipment in a locked car but not overnight. My home and contents
insurance was the only one which covered an incident in Amsterdam
fifteen years ago - our Peugeot had a 'ski hatch' in the rear seat
despite being a saloon, and we left some gear in the boot overnight, and
were observed. Most of the stuff could not be reached through the small
hatch but someone broke into the car, opened the armrest hole into the
boot, and got one camera bag by its strap removing a portable computer
and some accessories. My camera-business insurance refused cover but the
household cover paid up.

David
harrogate3 - 29 Dec 2006 08:04 GMT
> My normal policy is to not insure my photo gear.  (Extensive collection
> built up over many years, and with both old and the latest pro DSLR gear.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Many thanks

If you have a good domestic contents policy it will have, or have the
option to have, an all-risks section. IME many companies limit this to
about 20% of the total cover but don't require you to specify items
with an individual value of less than either £1000 or £1500.

Certainly I have not seen any limitations imposed in respect of
security. When we were insured with Royal and Sun Alliance as
underwriters for HSBC and thieves got into my car and stole two
cameras when we were on holiday in Belgium the question of security
was never mentioned - and that was a Vectra estate.

Signature

Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

Mark Dunn - 29 Dec 2006 09:35 GMT
I'd echo David- insure if a loss would shut your business down or you own
digital jewellery. If  I drop my Hasselblad, I'll use my Rolleiflex for a
bit.

> > My normal policy is to not insure my photo gear.  (Extensive
> collection
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> cameras when we were on holiday in Belgium the question of security
> was never mentioned - and that was a Vectra estate.
Liz Leyden - 29 Dec 2006 10:34 GMT
> If you have a good domestic contents policy it will have, or have the
> option to have, an all-risks section. IME many companies limit this to
> about 20% of the total cover but don't require you to specify items
> with an individual value of less than either £1000 or £1500.
I agree.
Check your terms and conditions.
(I agree with David, BTW, don't touch Norwich Union. Don't get me
started!)

> Certainly I have not seen any limitations imposed in respect of
> security. When we were insured with Royal and Sun Alliance as
> underwriters for HSBC and thieves got into my car and stole two
> cameras when we were on holiday in Belgium the question of security
> was never mentioned - and that was a Vectra estate.
This clause seems to be pretty frequent in specific Travel Insurance
policies.

Slainte

Liz

Signature

http://www.v-liz.com -  Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos
Photo Gallery:
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111

Simon Stanmore - 29 Dec 2006 15:27 GMT
Glover & Howe ... http://www.gloverhowe.co.uk/ ... OK for the insured
equipment to be in the rear of an estate car if placed under a top cover and
out of view
--
Simon

> My normal policy is to not insure my photo gear.  (Extensive collection
> built up over many years, and with both old and the latest pro DSLR gear.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Many thanks
David Kilpatrick - 29 Dec 2006 15:41 GMT
> Glover & Howe ... http://www.gloverhowe.co.uk/ ... OK for the insured
> equipment to be in the rear of an estate car if placed under a top cover and
> out of view

As commented, this company is the firm which has supplied the Minolta
Club, Pentax Club and Canon EOS magazine (club) insurance for two
decades. When applying, say you are a Canon/Pentax/MinSony user if you
are and you can probably get a special proposal form and a discount. The
various clubs all benefit (or have done) from a commission which in the
case of the Minolta Club has funded subsidies for lecturers to visit
camera clubs.

The terms of their insurance were thrashed out with myself, Robert Scott
and Peter Cox and refined over the years. One of the things they offer -
which you might be surprised NOT to find from other insurers - is that
all repairs will be done by the authorised repairer (many have their
deal with an independent firm which does NOT do repairs well). Another
is a guarantee of same-make replacement... you may not believe it, but
one insurer used to rely on Jessops used equipment stock for all
replacements, arguing that the camera damaged/stolen was used, therefore
a used replacement was like for like; and this firm, when no identical
camera was available, would even insist that a different MAKE was
comparable and give a Minolta owner an Olympus instead.

Glover and Howe allow 'as new equivalent' insurance on request. If you
have for example a Canon A1 or a Minolta XD-7 you can set your own value
on the camera based on a modern equivalent, or if there's nothing like
it, a similar level of quality. So you might insure a Canon A1 on the
basis that a 30D was an acceptable value and level of modern camera. But
you then pay premiums based on that valuation. If there's a dispute,
they use the camera maker clubs, or go directly to the makers, to
resolve it.

It's sad but with the decline in overall membership and readership of
the camera make user groups their turnover from this specialised
insurance has declines, and new regulations mean they won't be able to
pay commissions (which earned them free distribution of their leaflets,
and permanent mentions in the user group mags) so they will have to
advertise instead.

David
Malcolm Stewart - 29 Dec 2006 16:43 GMT
>> Glover & Howe ... http://www.gloverhowe.co.uk/ ... OK for the insured
>> equipment to be in the rear of an estate car if placed under a top cover
>> and out of view

> The terms of their insurance were thrashed out with myself, Robert Scott
> and Peter Cox and refined over the years. One of the things they offer -
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> available, would even insist that a different MAKE was comparable and give
> a Minolta owner an Olympus instead.

snip
> David

One of my reasons for carrying the absolute minimum of cover is that my
"well insured" brother had great problems in replacing his HiFi with
equipment of his choice when his was burgled some years ago.

Thanks to all, for all the suggestions - I'll make some enquiries.

Signature

M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Liz Leyden - 30 Dec 2006 10:28 GMT
> Another  is a guarantee of same-make replacement... you may not
> believe it, but  one insurer used to rely on Jessops used equipment
> stock for all  replacements, arguing that the camera damaged/stolen
> was used, therefore  a used replacement was like for like;
Not surprising if the wording on the policy didn't specify 'new for
old' (my house insurance does, and when I had to make a camera claim,
that's what I got. However, what I didn't get was any sort of receipt,
it just arrived in a big Jessops box, all in origianl camera/lens
boxes etc., but if something had malfunctioned within a year I'm not
sure what I could have done - the camera which was lost/stolen was
only a few months old. Luckily, it didn't).

> and this firm, when no identical camera was available, would even
> insist that a different MAKE was comparable and give a Minolta owner
> an Olympus instead.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slainte

Liz

Signature

http://www.v-liz.com -  Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos
Photo Gallery:
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=165111

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.