Insurance

[norclaj32]

I only started on my photography pathway earlier this year but along the way I seem to have amassed quite a bit of stuff and was wondering what I should I do in terms on insurance..?

Do you guys have a separate policy or do you declare the explicitly on your house insurance?

 

[Robertsafc]

I've listed everything separately on my home insurance and too pics of the items and receipts as they something I always seem to lose.
It don't take long for it to amount to a lot of money with photography

 

[norclaj32]

I've listed everything separately on my home insurance and too pics of the items and receipts as they something I always seem to lose.

I'm going to look into this I think..

It don't take long for it to amount to a lot of money with photography

I'm starting to realise this...as is my wife when she received my Xmas ideas list..Lol

 

[Chipper]

I did a lot of research on this in October and worked out that our household policy was the way to go for me. I have nominated items which are insured out of the house; specialist companies were very expensive and quite limiting in what I could do. One assumed incorrectly I was professional and insisted on a phone call... There are quite a few threads like this so might be worth doing a search. One company I approached at the Photo show last year confirmed that unless you had the kit in your hands or attached to you in a bag, when out of the house, you would not be covered! Well know name, can't remember which one..not far from the big Calumet stand.

 

[rob-nikon]

There are pros and cons of both. It's likely house insurance will be cheaper buy any claims will increase your house insurance. Most house insurance doesn't allow you to make any money at all from photography so don't even sell one image as you may not be covered.

There are several photography insurance companies out there, some are only for professional and don't cover amateurs. It's very dependant on what or how much you want to insure.

One company I approached at the Photo show last year confirmed that unless you had the kit in your hands or attached to you in a bag, when out of the house, you would not be covered!

That's not that unusual, policies do vary greatly and my house insurance is very similar. Last time I looked it was cheaper to be semi-pro than amateur, this is mainly because of the 'false accidental damage claims' amateurs seem to be more likely to make when they want to upgrade or their camera has failed. The good thing is photography insurers are quite open about it when you talk through the different scenarios whereas I've found house insurers to be more unsure. I would rather know before making a claim.

 

[Chipper]

As I explained, I am not a professional, so no selling takes place!

 

[rob-nikon]

As I explained, I am not a professional, so no selling takes place!

I thought I would mention it as some may not notice this point and although it doesn't apply to most amateurs (like yourself and me too) there is always that small chance that it may apply to one amateur out there. If someone is contacted out of the blue and paid for a one off image then it would likely invalidate your house insurance (both photography and likely building/contents). If it did happen it may be a one off but it's possible it could invalidate future claims as many house insurers class it as professional even if only one payment (however small) has been received.

 

[Chipper]

??