Insuring your gear.

Phil White

Phil White

Suspended / Banned
Messages
286
Edit My Images
Yes
I will be investing in some expensive equipment soon to the value of about 12 thousand pounds and want to make sure I have excellent insurance cover.

As with anything insured these days the insurance companies will try their hardest to avoid paying out in the event of a claim if they see something that will reject it.

So my question is, who would you recommend as a reputable company to go with.
 
I added my gear (individually specified) under all risks as an addition to my household insurance.
 
Previously used Glover & Howe - excellent service when I had to claim from them
Now I just add it to my Contents Insurance for convenience - not had to claim yet though so dont know how good it is
 
Phil White said:
As with anything insured these days the insurance companies will try their hardest to avoid paying out in the event of a claim if they see something that will reject it.
Click to expand...
Not my experience. My insurers are thoroughly reasonable and on several occasions have paid out when I thought they could have tried to wriggle out of it, had they been so inclined. Recently they even paid out on a loss in circumstances for which I technically was not covered. This was an oversight on the policy and they took the view that they knew my business and they had a responsibility to ensure I had adequate and appropriate cover; so they backdated the additional cover and paid out.

Imaging Insurance. Couldn't recommend them highly enough.
 
CLIIK works for me :)
 
Double check the small print if you put it on your household insurance. A friend of mine recently had his insurance company wiggle out of a claim. He fell over and banged his camera and lens. Luckily only the filter broke on the lens, but the camera has needed repairing.

He was insured on his household insurance and had paid extra for this for 7 years. This was the first time he'd made a claim and they refused. They asked him if he had a website and he said he did. They said he was therefore classed as a professional and wasn't covered. I'm not sure of all the details. I think he does sell the odd photo but it is certainly not his main source of income. I don't know which insurance company it was.
 
Bebop said:
I'm not sure of all the details.
Click to expand...
And therein lies one of the main reasons for the assumptions made in the first post about insurers trying to avoid paying out.
 
Goody13 said:
And therein lies one of the main reasons for the assumptions made in the first post about insurers trying to avoid paying out.
Click to expand...
But surely worth mentioning? Check the small print. If you have a website, you may be considered to be professional and not covered... even if you've paid extra for many years!
 
That is a fair point, but a home insurance will only cover gear for personal use.

If your friend was using it for personal use when the damage occurred, he may have a case for complaining and may win.

Of course, it all depends on the circumstances and if he uses a broker, they should be able to help.
 
My gears are insured with Aaduki, good experience from them so far :)
 
If it helps Paul, I started using Imaging Insurance in June 2015 (I had just bought a big hunk of Canon L glass, and the thought of dropping it, or getting robbed, house fire, car crash etc was on the mind!). I was at around the same value of kit as you.

I did plenty of research and looked at a lot of web reviews, I like to make the right choices. I never buy an insurance product just on price, so I'm not into meerkats and comparisons! I want a solid company with a history of fairness. As part of my work (which is not photography), I have met many insurance company executives, and the insurance game is generally about taking a premium and never having to pay out! So you have to choose the right company.

Imaging Insurance gave a good price and communicated the best of all I contacted for a quote. I haven't had to claim, so I can't give you any experience on that claims. However many reviews indicated they were a good company when things went wrong. They also didn't have any silly clauses, I did hear some won't allow you to claim if you go near water or cliffs etc

I found many of the companies I approached weren't much good at giving quotes, advice and just simple communication! and I did choose some leading names to give qoutes.

Home insurance is ok to a point, but watch out for limits and clauses, if you have some expensive kit, I would avoid it.

I noted that there were quite a few websites with buying advice, and many of the forums had members with experiences, I used that info to make my choice.

Good luck with it, I made my choice, but like someone said, you don't know if it was a good one till things go wrong!
 
As stated in an earlier post by John Soliven, Aaduki for me as well. Have been with them for many years. Reasonable prices, Haven't had to make a claim...yet, so no idea how they will handle that.
 
phildoug said:
As part of my work (which is not photography), I have met many insurance company executives, and the insurance game is generally about taking a premium and never having to pay out!
Click to expand...
To a certain extent that is correct, but you have put the wrong spin on it. Insurers take premiums on the basis they will collect more than they have to pay out. Taking in more than you pay out is the basis for all businesses, yet it appears to be wrong for insurance companies. Why?

That is completely different from avoiding having to pay out. Please feel free to correct me, but I doubt you or anyone on here knows of someone having an insurance company turn down a genuine claim which is covered within the policy terms where an accurate disclosure of information has been made at the time of taking out the policy.

Having worked in the insurance industry for 27 years, I have dealt with people who will no doubt claim to their friends the oft used comment about insurers avoiding paying out but, as a broker, we would not allow an insurer to do this and if we did think they were acting unfairly, there is always the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Consumers are more aware of their rights than ever theses days, which is good, and means there should be no unfairness.
 
My statement was a little flippant! but as you say, there is an element of truth in there. I don't disagree with you Peter, they likely have reason not to pay out, but few buyers look at the small print, and perhaps its a bit too small with a few weasel words here and there? I have worked with a few good brokers, who place people with good companies, who they know deliver from experience. A good broker helps, as I am sure you know well.

I have lots of insurance products, and always ask lots of questions, I didn't know much about photographic cover, and found there are many pitfalls to be aware of. I made list of the typical issues that have caught people out, and made sure the policy covered my kit and was fair (as far as I could).

The company I finally went with and Aduki (mentioned above) both gave good friendly advice and were actually interested in the business I was offering them. A few of the others couldn't return simple e-mails, offer quick quotes or offer good advice, and I hadn't even purchased! Hate to think how they would treat you if you wanted to make a claim. Perhaps I caught some of the others on a bad day.

Doubt always remains, hope I don't need to claim and find out it was a bad choice!
 
That's always the dilemma, Phil. An insurance policy is intangible and you don't find out how good it is until you come to claim.

On the other hand, regulation has meant that insurers need to use clear, understandable language and the concept of small print is being eradicated and it must be the same size as the other print in terms document.

I accept, however, that the length of some documents can be daunting.

As you say, using a reputable insurer/broker should mean no problems.
 
Goody13 said:
That's always the dilemma, Phil. An insurance policy is intangible and you don't find out how good it is until you come to claim.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Whenever there's a discussion here about insurance, you always get people popping up to say that such-and-such a company is good, but they've never had to make a claim....
 
Goody13 said:
... regulation has meant that insurers need to use clear, understandable language and the concept of small print is being eradicated and it must be the same size as the other print in terms document.

I accept, however, that the length of some documents can be daunting.
Click to expand...
The other aspect to watch out for is provisions which might have subjective interpretations. For example my policy with Imaging Insurance has a clause which requires me to "take all reasonable precautions to avoid loss or damage". The interpretation of that word "reasonable" could be open to dispute. As it happens I know from the experience of many, many claims that they have always interpreted "reasonable" reasonably, but that's the kind of thing you don't find out until you claim.
 
Thanks for all your responses to this. I'll be sure to check out some insurers.
 
I have my camera equipment on my home insurance through Churchill. It covers my gear while I am using it away from the house for my own personal use. I have itemised the more expensive equipment. A good idea I read on this forum was to itemise all your gear and include the serial numbers of all your gear and send this to your insurers asking them to keep a copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top