Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / December 2006
Camera & lens insurance
|
|
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
|
|
|