Author Topic: Insuring your camera gear - Home insurance or specialist ? (Read 7243 times)

Phadrea · « **on:** October 09, 2015, 02:20 »

I need to insure around £3500 of camera gear old and new. I have home and contents insurance, with the option to add valuable items. What would be my best option for a self employed musician/photographer (only stock at the moment) for camera insurance on location in the UK only covering accidental damage and theft ?

Thanks.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #1 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:33 »

I would phone up my home insurance and see what the extra is. You could already be covered as they will probably count the individual items not all of it as a whole.

bunhill · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:36 »

As a UK semi/professional you will probably also want to have liability cover.

Phadrea · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2015, 02:57 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 09, 2015, 02:36

As a UK semi/professional you will probably also want to have liability cover.

Would I need that as I don't work with people, models ?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2015, 09:36 »

I tried once checking getting insurance through my home policy, and they threatened to cancel my policy for running a business out of my home. So, I went with State Farm to get liability and equipment insurance. Which has more than paid for itself.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2015, 11:30 »

A while ago when this was asked, there was a list of UK insurers which people recommended.
I emailled all of them.
Most didn't even answer.
Two answered, and both wanted to insure my home also. One answered to say they didn't insure cameras and lenses only despite advertising as insuring professional photographers. Apparently they weren't really interested as I don't have a studio, just cameras and lenses, and that's probably why the others didn't reply to the email.
So I contacted my home insurer and paid more. Too much IMO, as there is zero extra risk to my equipment in what I do as a stock photographer compared to when I was 'just' a keen amateur, but at least it's a taxable expense.

bunhill · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2015, 12:22 »

I have previously found Imaging Insurance (UK) to be very helpful and competitive. But I do not currently need insurance so I have not used them for about 18 months.

Quote from: ShadySue on October 09, 2015, 11:30

A while ago when this was asked, there was a list of UK insurers which people recommended.
I emailled all of them.
Most didn't even answer.

That's a useful thread which Herg should probably look at. In a post there you also mentioned them being too expensive.

Quote from: ShadySue on October 09, 2015, 11:30

One answered to say they didn't insure cameras and lenses only despite advertising as insuring professional photographers. Apparently they weren't really interested as I don't have a studio, just cameras and lenses, and that's probably why the others didn't reply to the email.

You also reported that they wouldn't do the liability insurance without the equipment cover, because you were happy with your equipment cover.

Quote from: ShadySue on October 09, 2015, 11:30

Two answered, and both wanted to insure my home also

I wonder perhaps whether there was some confusion - and what they meant related to insuring the equipment when it was at your home. Which would obviously be part of the package.

Quote from: Herg on October 09, 2015, 02:57

Quote from: bunhill on October 09, 2015, 02:36
As a UK semi/professional you will probably also want to have liability cover.

Would I need that as I don't work with people, models ?

I would say yes. But that's a personal opinion not a statement of definite fact.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #7 on:** October 10, 2015, 11:03 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 09:36

I tried once checking getting insurance through my home policy, and they threatened to cancel my policy for running a business out of my home. So, I went with State Farm to get liability and equipment insurance. Which has more than paid for itself.

I'm not in the US but I had a similar issue.

For that value of gear, I'd almost not bother. 90% of the reason I carry insurance is for the liability. I haven't made a claim in 20 years, it would be a massive waste of money if all I was insuring was a few thousand in gear.

Freedom · « **Reply #8 on:** October 10, 2015, 11:29 »

I always buy extended license to cover any damages including those caused by my own negligence, for a new camera. The insurer once gave me a brand new sensor three years after the purchase.

robhainer · « **Reply #9 on:** October 10, 2015, 11:31 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 09, 2015, 09:36

I tried once checking getting insurance through my home policy, and they threatened to cancel my policy for running a business out of my home. So, I went with State Farm to get liability and equipment insurance. Which has more than paid for itself.

I have the same thing. Costs about $500 a year, with a $500 deductible. Not State Farm, tho. From The Hartford.

The workers comp I have to carry because of a contract is way, way more expensive.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Insuring your camera gear - Home insurance or specialist ? (Read 7243 times)

Phadrea

Justanotherphotographer

bunhill

Phadrea

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

bunhill

PeterChigmaroff

Freedom

robhainer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors