I read today about a photographer in New Orleans who all his equipment in Hurricane Katrina whose insurance company would only pay out a small fraction of the value of his losses because it wasn't digital but "Film equipment, and therefore obsolete", which makes me wonder if the premiums I'm paying on my policy for my gear that is all more than twenty years old would ever be justified in case I ever lost it, because I'm beginning to seriously doubt it, because Insurers can always come up with at least twenty good reason why they won't pay out, and employ people especially for that purpose, What do you think ?
You better have a look at your insurance policy. Chances are that the times that they might be 'willing' to pay anything should something happen have ended long ago already.
I stopped paying insurance a long time (about 30 years) ago, because the insurance company depreciated the value of the equipment every year (while prices - even what i would have gotten if i would have sold the kit i had used - only went up) and what i had to pay remained based on the valuation of the equipment when i got the insurance policy.
In effect, after only a few years, i would have gotten absolutely nothing at all from them should i lose anything, yet was still expected to pay the premium every year.
So i told them they were nuts, and started paying the premium to myself. With them not paying anything, i would be the one taking the risk anyway. So a true no-brainer.
It worked out fine. Saved me quite a lot of money.
Now only when something out of the ordinary would occur will i consider insuring equipment. And only for that occassion.
benji, do you have a link?
Yes, look at Kelly Flanigan's post-http://photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00Wh0p
Originally Posted by epatsellis
Let me see if I can confuse the issue a bit. In my experience, most policies for camera equipment pay "actual cash value" for as opposed to replacement cost. When you suffer a loss of a 5 year-old digital camera, you have lost a camera which can not be replaced with new as it is no longer available, so the insurance company will pay you what it would cost to buy another used 5 year-old digital camera. Same would be true of a 25 year old film camera or lens. The trap we set for ourselves is not keeping our items insured at the proper amount on our schedule. For example, you buy a lens for $400, insure it for that and several years later have a loss. Lets say in the current market for the lens might be $650 to replace. The maximum you are going to get paid is the $400 for which you insured it. Before anyone gets all disturbed about not being paid "replacement cost" for their camera gear, I would assert that "actual cash value" and "replacement cost" are in fact the same thing for obsolete cameras that you actually replace. I know this may not be what you want to hear, however I'd suggest you read your policy to see what it says about how things are covered. Yes, I know they are difficult to understand, even for those of us who sell insurance. The information one gets from a phone call to their agent's office can also sometimes be confusing and sometimes even wrong. If the equipment you have insured is only covered on your homeowner'sd policy and is used professionally, it may not be covered away from you resisdence.
Please don't take this posting as either legal or insurance advice, other than I am suggesting you read your policy to better understand what is covered. Bill
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
How does a vintage lens factor with insurance ?
Say a big ol' fast Petzval worth anywhere up from $800 to thousands - already 140 years old...
Cleared the bowel problem, working on the consonants...
My dilemma is is it worth paying premiums on equipment that's more than twenty years old that was paid for and forgotten about years ago that could be replaced on Ebay for very little.
Originally Posted by nsurit
one needs to have their equipment re-assest every few years as the company bases their payout out on the receipts you provided at the time the equipment was placed on the policy (or at least that is how my company works) The reality is ; check the cost of insurance based against what the equipment can be purchased for at this time (as the above fellow has suggested)
In my case, i didn't think it was very confusing, Bill.
Since the insurance company proposed to reimburse what they call 'current value', depreciated the value of the equipment by a considerable percentage every year, set by themselves without any regard for 'market value/replacement value' (i had stuff that actually would have brought in more money, had i sold it, then i had paid for it new - not according to the insurance company though), yet had me pay a premium based upon the value originally insured, i simply decided it was a bum wrap, and walked away from it.
Doing the sums, considering the money i saved by not paying insurance fees, i could have had all my stuff stolen and replaced by brand new equipment at my expense, and still have money to spare.
It will be terrible should i have it all stolen today or tomorrow, having to cough up a huge amount at once to replace it. But in the long run, i'm extremely happy.
But my happiness aside, do have a look at what "replacement cost" actually means according to your insurer.
In my case, back then, it would have meant "nothing at all", after only a few years.
QG, I take it you still insure the home itself, right?
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.