Broke Lens; Insurance Paying Out; What to get?

FEChariot wrote in post #16306178
So every 1.5 years, you need to drop a $900 lens or you are behind.

That's the thing about insurance...it's a gamble!

FEChariot wrote in post #16306178
So every 1.5 years, you need to drop a $900 lens or you are behind.

Two things. The $49/month covers EVERYTHING HE OWNS, not just the camera stuff. Peace of mind is what insurance is all about, not ROI. From that standpoint all insurance is a waste of money.

My insurance company (no names, but the initials are A.L.L.S.T.A.T.E) will write me a rider to cover all my camera gear. New retail the total value comes to about $8,000. The policy is about $20 a month. I passed. $20/month = $240/ year. I have already gone 4 years without the extra insurance. I have already saved $960. Add my $500 deductible to that. I could go out today, drop my 60D and 15-85 in the lake and break even replacing it out of pocket. Plus I will never have to fill out a bunch of paperwork just to get my own money back. Add to that mess the fact that if I have a camera claim, I lose my "no claim deductible reduction", which could potentially cost me $500 on any future homeowner's claim.

I figure insurance companies are pretty smart. They will never write a policy they expect to lose money on. As there are only two parties to the insurance equation, that only leaves you to lose. Save the insurance premiums for stuff you can't afford to lose: house, car, spouse, or perhaps income producing photo equipment.

It's about peace of mind. If my bag were to be stolen, is be out several thousands of dollars. Same if the bag fell into a lake. You never know. So $50 a month for renters insurance bundled with camera coverage, well worth it for me.

xinvisionx wrote in post #16306135
That's what I ended up doing last night. Ordered the 17-40 refurbished from Canon for $614 out the door.

Huh, so you're ahead about 300 bucks?

Yes

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16306209
Two things. The $49/month covers EVERYTHING HE OWNS, not just the camera stuff. Peace of mind is what insurance is all about, not ROI. From that standpoint all insurance is a waste of money.

My insurance company (no names, but the initials are A.L.L.S.T.A.T.E) will write me a rider to cover all my camera gear. New retail the total value comes to about $8,000. The policy is about $20 a month. I passed. $20/month = $240/ year. I have already gone 4 years without the extra insurance. I have already saved $960. Add my $500 deductible to that. I could go out today, drop my 60D and 15-85 in the lake and break even replacing it out of pocket. Plus I will never have to fill out a bunch of paperwork just to get my own money back. Add to that mess the fact that if I have a camera claim, I lose my "no claim deductible reduction", which could potentially cost me $500 on any future homeowner's claim.

I figure insurance companies are pretty smart. They will never write a policy they expect to lose money on. As there are only two parties to the insurance equation, that only leaves you to lose. Save the insurance premiums for stuff you can't afford to lose: house, car, spouse, or perhaps income producing photo equipment.

Wow, that's high. The trick is to get a separate personal article policy (not a rider). This type of policy has no deductible and since it's not tied to any of your other policy, it won't affect them when you file a claim. So check with your insurance company to see if you can get a separate personal article policy (they may use a different name).

I pay just over $400 per year (business policy) for all my gear listed, plus it covers all my computer related gear and it has a $1M dollar liability coverage (shoot sports). Now, before going with this policy, I had a non-business personal article policy and I only paid about $200 or so per year for the same gear and there's no deductible. I think it was about $1.20 per $100.

Insurance is about peace of mind, which it gives me. So if I am shooting that high school game and the running back falls over me or my gear and decides to sue - PEACE OF MIND. If I go into the woods and that bear destroys my gear - PEACE OF MIND. If someone decides to rob me of my 1d4 and 500 - REALLY CHEAP PEACE OF MIND. Everything's a gamble, but at $200-400 a year, it's a cheap gamble. So talk to your insurance agents - riders tend to be more expensive than stand alone.

Just One Man's Opinion

I want the insurance for one thing. My bag getting stolen.

I cannot replace all of it at once. But I can cover 2-400 a year for a piece of mind.

Talley wrote in post #16309146
I want the insurance for one thing. My bag getting stolen.

I cannot replace all of it at once. But I can cover 2-400 a year for a piece of mind.

Talley,

I am guessing your gear cost you $4,000 to $5,000. You pay $400 per year for 10 years then lose your bag, you paid to replace it all anyway. What do you get out of the insurance at that point? If you are going to have to pay for it out of pocket anyway, just wait until you bag gets stolen, then go buy new stuff. No claim forms, no agents, no premiums, no deductible, no hassle. In the long run, that is cheaper. If it weren't, insurance companies would go out of business.

You get piece of mind.

There is no way I would be able to instantly replace my gear without insurance all at once. I accumulate gear over time. Watching for deals and purchasing when I can afford it. Could I end up paying more for insurance without incidence? Sure. But that's a small price to pay when I get piece of mind and knowing I'm covered.

I dropped my 17-40L last Saturday night and I had the money from my insurance company in my account by Tuesday. No hassle. Straight forward.

My new lens has been shipped and I'm enjoying not having to come up with the funds myself to replace.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16309410
Talley,

I am guessing your gear cost you $4,000 to $5,000. You pay $400 per year for 10 years then lose your bag, you paid to replace it all anyway. What do you get out of the insurance at that point? If you are going to have to pay for it out of pocket anyway, just wait until you bag gets stolen, then go buy new stuff. No claim forms, no agents, no premiums, no deductible, no hassle. In the long run, that is cheaper. If it weren't, insurance companies would go out of business.

I feel you're channeling my dad...

Do you self indemnify for your homeowners or auto insurance? What about health insurance? I'm guessing no even though it is technically an option for many people. Technically because while banks and several states allow for it most people can't swing it in a lump sum.

Your method only makes sense if people are putting that $400 away each year and the loss happens at the end of that time. For most people they can swing the $30/month but there is no way they could swing $5k all at once if a loss occurred

I have an Inland Marine Policy on my camera equipment and my wife's jewelry. Paying $240/year for about $23K. (Yes, I do agree that the OP is paying WAY too much for his insurance. At $600/yr he's getting robbed) We could lose and replace all that at once and replace it in cash but when compared with other expenses, it makes sense.

Fernando. Keep in mind $50 a month is not just my camera equipment. It's my renters insurance with my camera added on for additional coverage.

This is the age old debate on insurance.. People are just going to have different views on it. Risk averse people are how insurance companies make money.

elleana wrote in post #16310287
This is the age old debate on insurance.. People are just going to have different views on it. Risk averse people are how insurance companies make money.

Yes, but then you hear the stories of homes that burn down with no insurance and a collection is set up to help the family.

Lots of people have that "it won't happen to me attitude" and get burned in the end.

Here in Canada, we pay a lot of taxes to cover our medical. I'm ok with that as I know I won't have to mortgage the house if my family needs medical care. But, I must say I'll be the happiest fellow around if I pay into the medical system for 50 years and not once do I have to draw on it.

xinvisionx wrote in post #16310057
Fernando. Keep in mind $50 a month is not just my camera equipment. It's my renters insurance with my camera added on for additional coverage.

Aware. My Inland Marine, with a completely separate company than my autos/homeowners/umbre​lla, so no "bundling" discounts, is about $20/mo, but that's for a lot more coverage than you have. When last paying renter's I was paying $15/mo for $30K coverage. Allowing for inflation and recent losses by insurers, renters should be no more than about $15/mo for $15K in many areas.

$50/mo for your level of coverage, without knowing specifics sounds high. Unless you have stuff on your app that impacts your rate (claims, high crime location, credit score) it's time to shop that coverage.

I agree that we all have difference in opinions when it comes to insurance, but when I started investing heavily into my equipment, it became very clear that I needed to insure said equipment. Once I found out it covers everthing except normal wear and tear, it was a no brainer for me for such a small amount and in my case I get a million dollar liability on top of it, too. Here's the kicker, you can insure it for more than it costs if you want.

Now, if you ask me about extended warranties, I will argue to the end that that's a bunch of crap for suckers and that it's better and cheaper to just insure it.

Here's a good thread on this very subject

Tip: Always know what your policy allows, don't allow, covers and don't cover. Do not and I repeat do not rely on what the Agent says.