camera and lens insurance

[DJ72]

Hello Gang

 

I recently forked out around £1800 for a nice camera and lens

I am looking into insurance

I am not a professional

I looked at www.aaduki.com and their quote is £63 which I thought was reasonable:

 

• UK and 60 days worldwide cover (More cover outside of the UK is available by contacting us on 01837 658880)
• Theft from an unattended vehicle
• All risks including accidental damage and loss
• Full and open theft
•  

Does anyone here have insurance that they can recommend?

 

Thanks,

David. 

[MDM]

I use Aaduki for full professional insurance (kit, public liability and professional indemnity) and can definitely recommend them for customer service. I have not had to claim but any dealings with them have been excellent - they know their stuff and are very responsive to all queries. 

 

One thing I would say is that if you are using the camera for stock then you are using it professionally even though you are not a professional (i.e. making a living out of photography). You may want to clarify that with any insurer when taking out a policy as it may arise in the event of a claim and there is no point in having insurance that is invalid. 

[DJ72]

Thanks MDM, i will go ahead and let them know about that and most likely take out a policy with them. 

 

I am holidaying soon in some rough areas of Latin America and need the peace of mind that having cover might bring. 

[DJ72]

I just called them and yes, since I am an Alamy contributor I must pay for Pro. Seems a bit much as I have made about £150 in total. 

 

Anyway, now that I am committed to Pro status, the quote went up from £68 to £110. 

[Betty LaRue]

10 hours ago, DJ72 said:

I just called them and yes, since I am an Alamy contributor I must pay for Pro. Seems a bit much as I have made about £150 in total. 

 

Anyway, now that I am committed to Pro status, the quote went up from £68 to £110. 

Yikes. Belongings are belongings no matter your status. If I were a home builder, should I have to pay a higher insurance rate for my own home than if I were a postman? I think not.

Maybe the thinking is that “a pro” photographer is going to have their equipment out and about more.  Thing is, layman shooters can be out there shooting just as much, like my grandson did at one point. He was shooting more than I, and I was into stock. He was into pleasure.

Betty

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

Also use Aaduki have always found them to be very helpful.

 

Carol

[Allan Bell]

12 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Yikes. Belongings are belongings no matter your status. If I were a home builder, should I have to pay a higher insurance rate for my own home than if I were a postman? I think not.

Maybe the thinking is that “a pro” photographer is going to have their equipment out and about more.  Thing is, layman shooters can be out there shooting just as much, like my grandson did at one point. He was shooting more than I, and I was into stock. He was into pleasure.

Betty

 

The difference between amateur and pro prices is the public liability and professional indemnity mainly. That and a pro's equipment is more likely to be trashed than an amateur's.

 

Allan

 

[Betty LaRue]

3 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

The difference between amateur and pro prices is the public liability and professional indemnity mainly. That and a pro's equipment is more likely to be trashed than an amateur's.

 

Allan

 

Understood, Allan. Can’t say I like it, though. (Says the lady who’s been treated shabbily by insurance companies.)

The claims I’ve ever made, (not photography) I’ve been treated as if I were a crook over half of the claims. What’s even worse, when they got through with me, they made an honest person feel like a crook.

[DJ72]

I would have thought that the definition of "professional" should be better tuned.

 

Unlike other contributors but similar to many here, I submit images to Alamy all the time but the paltry amount I have received (£150 in maybe two years) hardly defines me as a Pro.

 

But I will pay up anyway, as in the next few weeks there is a much higher chance of things going wrong when I start my trip.

[spacecadet]

11 minutes ago, DJ72 said:

I would have thought that the definition of "professional" should be better tuned.

 

Unlike other contributors but similar to many here, I submit images to Alamy all the time but the paltry amount I have received (£150 in maybe two years) hardly defines me as a Pro.

 

But I will pay up anyway, as in the next few weeks there is a much higher chance of things going wrong when I start my trip.

What with fair trading regulations, insurers are much less able to wriggle out of claims with small print. Someone making £150 a week out of photography is hardly a professional and it's hard to see how it changes the risk. But of course you've let the cat out of the bag by asking the question.

I should say, though, that I self-insure and always have. But I've never owned more than a few hundred pounds' worth of kit. You may want the peace of mind.

You could always ask another insurer as an amateur.

[DJ72]

I have spoken to them but they dont know who I am - as soon as they offered to "take me through it" I suddenly had an urgent meeting to attend

[spacecadet]

5 hours ago, DJ72 said:

I have spoken to them but they dont know who I am - as soon as they offered to "take me through it" I suddenly had an urgent meeting to attend

Then stay an amateur😉

[MDM]

6 hours ago, spacecadet said:

What with fair trading regulations, insurers are much less able to wriggle out of claims with small print. Someone making £150 a week out of photography is hardly a professional and it's hard to see how it changes the risk. But of course you've let the cat out of the bag by asking the question.

I should say, though, that I self-insure and always have. But I've never owned more than a few hundred pounds' worth of kit. You may want the peace of mind.

You could always ask another insurer as an amateur.

 

If he is using the camera to make money or to potentially make money, then that will likely be considered professional usage even if he is not a professional. I would think that any claim would be open to dispute if the insurance company were to find out he is using it for stock photography. The same would go for gear insured on home insurance which will likely not be covered if it is being used to make money.  Suggesting he witholds information about intended usage is I think not a good idea.  At the very least tell whatever company of the intended usage, don't conceal it. Otherwise the policy may be void.

 

That said, whether it is worth insuring that amount is another thing: self-insurance as you call it may be more sensible.

[Allan Bell]

18 hours ago, MDM said:

 

If he is using the camera to make money or to potentially make money, then that will likely be considered professional usage even if he is not a professional. I would think that any claim would be open to dispute if the insurance company were to find out he is using it for stock photography. The same would go for gear insured on home insurance which will likely not be covered if it is being used to make money.  Suggesting he witholds information about intended usage is I think not a good idea.  At the very least tell whatever company of the intended usage, don't conceal it. Otherwise the policy may be void.

 

That said, whether it is worth insuring that amount is another thing: self-insurance as you call it may be more sensible.

 

Explain "Self-insure" please.

 

Allan

 

[NYCat]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Explain "Self-insure" please.

 

Allan

 

 

Sometimes it pays to put the money you would spend on insurance in your bank account. Then you use your own money in case of a loss. Depends, of course, on how much you will need in case of a loss and how high the insurance premium is.  I do not self-insure my apartment.

 

Paulette

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, NYCat said:

 

Sometimes it pays to put the money you would spend on insurance in your bank account. Then you use your own money in case of a loss. Depends, of course, on how much you will need in case of a loss and how high the insurance premium is.  I do not self-insure my apartment.

 

Paulette

 

Hmm! Working on the OP's figures above and knowing the value of my kit I would have to be saving around £250/year for amateur use.

 

Having paid out most of that for some new memory for my computer I cannot afford my insurance this year.😆

 

Allan

 

[MizBrown]

Outside the US, Canada, and Western Europe, insurance sometimes involves buying your gear back from the thieves.  One of the local pros did that when his studio was burgled just before an important shoot.   I've heard that insurance of places down here requires having someone in the house at all times. 

 

Friend of mine had his laptop stolen out of his truck when his foreman (a) decided to arrange a theft or (b) felt he didn't need to stay in the truck while his boss was shopping.  The person who bought it from the thief took it to a repair guy who found my email address on a document I'd given my friend's wife.  We established that while I hadn't been robbed recently, my friend had and the friend paid the guy who'd bought it from the thief what he'd paid for it, maybe $150 US.  My friend got all his farm records back.   The repair guy figured out that the computer had been stolen since everything was in English.

[IanDavidson]

 

Insurance contracts are “of the utmost good faith”. Which means you HAVE to declare all material facts.  Material being anything that could impact the risk.  If you sell your photos, or earn money from your photos you must declare this and will be treated as a pro.  The insurance company may well check if you make a claim.  Think of what a Google search will turn up...

 

I use Aaduki I don’t like them but they appear to be less worse Than others.  Read the policy details carefully.  I am insured as a news photographer - but not to do paparazzi work - that can be a very fine  line...  and every time I buy new kit I have to pay them a big chunk of money as an admin fee  to update the policy plus the additional risk premium  on one occasion the admin fee was greater than the increase in premium 

 

They insisted on me paying for the total loss for all my kit while working even though I would not and could not take all my kit out for an assignment.  But, like I said I view them as least worse; but I could be wrong.

My professional insurance costs more than my house building and contents combined 

[Stokie]

Probably too late to the party, but if other people are thinking of photo insurance I can recommend Photoguard. 

 

Had a claim last year and the whole process of claiming was very painless and they paid out rapidly.

 

John.

[justdave]

Thanks Stokie. I'm just looking into insurance myself so all recommendations are helpful

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

That's good to now about Photoguard.  Am currently with Aaduki, not had any claims but they've always seemed very helpful and effiencet when I've changed what's insured.

 

Carol

[MizBrown]

On 03/07/2019 at 07:52, DJ72 said:

Thanks MDM, i will go ahead and let them know about that and most likely take out a policy with them. 

 

I am holidaying soon in some rough areas of Latin America and need the peace of mind that having cover might bring. 

Make sure you're getting coverage for there and look out for exemptions on areas being in the US State Department security level 3: "Reconsider Travel Plans." 

 

In Nicaragua, I could probably buy a camera back for $150.  Haven't had one stolen yet, so eight years of not paying premiums.   

 

 

[Starsphinx]

I do not know if this helps anyone but I get my insurance through Amateur photographer.  They specify their insurance is for amateurs or semi-professionals who earn less than 50% of their income through photography/related activities.
I am paying under £6 a month (I do not have a lot of gear) and that has £1 million public liability.  MORE DETAILS

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, Starsphinx said:

I do not know if this helps anyone but I get my insurance through Amateur photographer.  They specify their insurance is for amateurs or semi-professionals who earn less than 50% of their income through photography/related activities.
I am paying under £6 a month (I do not have a lot of gear) and that has £1 million public liability.  MORE DETAILS

Not bad but I don't have many items worth more than the excess 😕

Unless it covered the Steenbeck.

[Starsphinx]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Not bad but I don't have many items worth more than the excess 😕

Unless it covered the Steenbeck.

When I took it out (and if I make changes) I have to list and identify each item,  and the unique product codes are required for recent stuff.  I mean the excess on kit is £50 and I am looking at £150 to replace just one of my kit lenses.  I think they go new for old replaced with the nearest equivalent in discontinued stuff.  They do cover some non-camera stuff - you just have to list what you are insuring.  

Like everything else it is going to depend on what kit you have and what cover you want - but for people who make a bit of money from stock who use fairly recent cameras and lenses and who are being quoted silly money for "professional" as opposed to "amateur" insurance I think they do provide a compromise allowing up to 50% of your income to come from photography.  This has to be a better definition of professional than "you sold a picture on a stock site and made 99c from it so we class you as professional and charge you through the nose"