when Insuring...

shiato storm

shiato storm

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,756
Edit My Images
No
...I'm just wondering, how to value all the camera bits I have with regards to getting insurance; lenses, bodies, tripod and so on. I've done a quick run through at warehouse express and I can tell you I didn't pay quite the amount its reckoning my gear is were I to purchase it - some is 2nd hand...most policies offer new for old so whats the deal?
the next step is picking a decent insurer. can't really go on home they don't cover camera equipment, seen photoguard, glover&howe, e&l plus a couple others. haven't sifted through small print unless anyone wants to add their 2p to who's hot, and who's not.
 
Using somewhere like WE is a good idea, the insurance company will ask for serial numbers as well.

As to insurers I use Photoguard, they appear to be okay but I haven't claimed yet. DO NOT USE E&L, they are a bunch of shysters and they take way too long to pay out, if ever. This is not just with camera equipment, but golf gear and equine insurance as well.

I quoted this example on here a few weeks ago but I don't mind repeating it. If a horse owner is insured with E&L I know personally of two local equine vets who insist that the customer pays the vet directly rather than the vet claim through the insurance as usually happens. This is because of the major problems they have trying to get E&L to pay out. My wife is a member of an equestrian forum and you should see the abuse they get on there. I also know a few golfers who have been stung by E&L so I wouldn't go near them.
 
You may find a lot id already covered in your home insurance. Onmy policy, I've named my Ls on my policy plus I have a further £2000 away from home cover. Didn't cost that much to add (£50 or so).
 
I also use Photoguard and find it really easy to use. Its all on-line for me, but i am a little fed up that updating my details costs £15 a pop. Now that i am as poor as a church mouse at least this cant happen again for a while.........

You def need to insure at a value that you know you can purchase replacements at - ie, market rates and not what it cost you :)

Apart from my endorsement, i cant really add to much to H's advice
 
ooh, cheers for the advice, I took a quick scan and noticed their overseas policy is worded in such a way that it implies you must tell them of you exact plans whilst you are away...meaning they could argue that you didn't advise them accordingly and so are not covered. seemed weird the way it was put - so: bargepole extended, and they're out of reach!
speaking of horse insurance...also good advice, g/f has a couple, might be worth letting her know!
Why is it insurers are all too keen to tell you what they do but very reluctant to say what they don't when legally they HAVE to. shysters is probably the best explanation afforded I suppose
 
Here, all the research in one thread:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=13113&highlight=insurance

I went with Glover Howe in the end. They provide multi-trip international cover as long as each trip is not longer than 60 days.

They also cover unattended vehicle (but not at night from 9pm to 8am or something like that).

There is an excess.

They are quite cheap. The price on their website is valid (even though the date is from 2002).
 
shiato storm said:
speaking of horse insurance...also good advice, g/f has a couple, might be worth letting her know!
Click to expand...

If she's interested get her to sign up to Saddle up as it's quite a good forum and they will tell her all about E&L. :D
 
Careful

E&L threatend to sue a forum I moderate because a member pointed out some of their small print
 
thats not very friendly is it? an insurance company should be completely open about their practices, if they get arsey over their own small print I fail to see the grounds for their argument. The fact that someone may spot a discrepancy in the wording and bring it to light for all to see surely is a good thing? It give the insurance company a chance to sort it out...I can't see the harm myself. other than if that company is concerned about losing customers - well, why write odd things in the small print then? we're going to read it, its on display for all to see - by law it has to be. They'd fail a case.
If on the other hand someone said out-right 'these guys are crooks' I believe that is libelous...silly muppet if thats what was said.

at the end of the day its upto people seeking insurance (like you or I) to read the small print to check it fits with our needs. Alerting people to dodgy dealings - a consumer watchdog approach if you like - can only be a good thing for all concerned. If it makes a company shape up then, in my mind, thats great - shows they are willing to help people rather than solely base themselves on getting as much money as possible and makes them look better inthe long run. Unfortunately not all companies are forward thinking but ho hum...

still, I read the small print, its not for me so I wont be going for them. Also based on advice found here and elsewhere I shall not be insuring things with E&L as they are not suitable.
 
Be very carefull and ask lots of questions when taking out the insurance.

I have all my kit insured in my home using Prudential - cheapest i could find.

All my stuff is insured by photoguard when away from the house etc, I also have my public liability insurance with them.

Some things to look out for,

you must have a reciept for the item (some places say it must have the serial number on it)
when traveling with your kit in a car etc it must be in a rigid container not a bag.
Some will not payout if your goods are secondhand even if you have a reciept, they say they only insure on new goods. (what diffrence it makes i dont know)

thats just a few of the strange things i found when looking for a policy a few years ago.
 
considering a vast proportion of kit out there is passed around - such as L lenses that really just keep on living - its a bit of a slap in the face to say that stuff is not insured if second hand.

that might be the 'evidence of ownership' bit...well, [other than a receipt] if someone took a photo of me holding all my gear? um, images taken through out the year with gear and such data recorded in the exif? paypal receipts [if got second hand since paypal is oftem the most conveniant way to transfer funds...], bank statements...they've chosen - typically vague wording so they can wriggle out of it I guess. most convenient, and yet people do it with cars every day - in fact its illegal not to!
oh, the ambiguity of insurers to suit themselves, you could be paying out a yearly sum, have a problem and then be tld 'nope cause its 2nd hand'... great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top