Insurance for hanging in a store/gallery

Hi all. I searched for a bit and couldn't find the answer to this. If it's there and I missed it I apologize for not being thorough enough.

I've recently began hanging my photography in a store and it occurred to me that it's not covered under my insurance. I spoke to my insurance company about it and they are challenged to find relevant comparable policies. I'm a landscape shooter, so there's no studio and very little risk of injury or damage of property that could accompany wedding photog's. I am a business and that is part of the challenge with the insurance company.

I assume that the store owner has coverage, however, I don't want to rely on someone else to protect my interests.

Does anyone carry an insurance policy for covering their work in a store, gallery or similar? If so, can you tell me what company is providing it and the basics regarding the policy specifics?

I'm a little confused here, what are you afraid of happening? The photo falling off the wall and hurting someone? The photo being lost if the store burns down and the prints are lost? IANAL, but the former isn't your liability and the latter shouldn't have enough value to bother insuring unless you are talking about an entire gallery of photos rather than a handful as the digital file, nor the copyright would be destroyed, only the media which should be cheap to replace in most cases.

There are roughly 30 photo's hanging on the wall, of various sizes and ranging from mostly $200 and up to $500 (retail), plus about 50 bin work photo's at $50/ea. Depending on how they sell, I hope to replace with larger sizes so over time this could go up a bit. Even if insurance won't give me retail for them I've got a $3000+ on the wall.

I'm not really concerned with a photo falling off the wall and hurting someone, and if it did fall off the wall, the cost of fixing would probably not be claim worthy. What I am concerned about mostly is fire, theft or some other total loss.

What is "IANAL"

J-Blake wrote in post #16741003
What is "IANAL"

I didn't know until I looked it up. "I am not a lawyer"

J-Blake wrote in post #16741003
There are roughly 30 photo's hanging on the wall, of various sizes and ranging from mostly $200 and up to $500 (retail), plus about 50 bin work photo's at $50/ea. Depending on how they sell, I hope to replace with larger sizes so over time this could go up a bit. Even if insurance won't give me retail for them I've got a $3000+ on the wall.

You have over $3,000 in cost (to replace) on the wall with 30 photos? Your bin work cost $50 to produce (each)?

Remember, insurance replaces like-for-like; you get back your cost, not the retail price and if there's a claim you will have to prove up that cost too.

Is there really enough there in what it would cost you to replace if the building burned to the ground to be worth insuring?

It seems like the best strategy is to require the gallery to show you proof of insurance before releasing your work to them. This happens quite often in business settings. Sometimes I get to drive newly released cars from automotive manufacturers for editorial reviews. Before they release the car to me, I have to show the liability policy of the editorial outlet I work for, which typically requires a much higher amount of liability coverage than a normal insurance policy would cover (typically $1M liability).

If the gallery can't provide you proof of their level of insurance coverage, then you don't put your prints in their gallery. Seems easy as that.

Honestly I don't know the area you are in and I hope I don't wind up eating my words but you are overthinking this. Given you concerns roll the dice. Unless these are in a high theft area the cost of the policy as well as the required documentation are likely not worth it.

so you're trying to insure, printing cost, framing+matting cost. Or are you trying to insure perceived artistic value based on speculation? I'm guessing your insurance is balking at the idea because its not an actual replacement value you are asking for.

The other issue in the cost and insurance value is what kind of prints are you dealing with?

After all, a digital image done on a modern printer is going to be worth peanuts replacement wise (as you can always just print another) compared to something like a large format direct plate capture where no other copy of that image exists.

I ANAL......Lawer.......​too many punch lines to list.....

Thanks for the replies everyone. I guess you're right that the best I can get is replacement, but that constitutes the $3K that's on the wall today and hopefully increases in the future! Yes, printing is relatively cheap, but these are large(er) prints and each is either plaque mounted or in a mat/frame and those are not. Each one costs me between $75 - $200 depending on size and mounting style. Beyond that, what about less tangible costs like gas, my equipment, my car, etc. There are many costs which go into this and each one has a portion in every photo. Then there's my time on each photo. Shouldn't that be compensated? No offense, but you guys who are looking at this as just the cost to print a photo are thinking about this like a person, not a business.

I realize the chance of something happening is remote.......just like regular insurance. My home has never been broken into or caught on fire, but I still carry insurance in case it does. Perhaps I’m being over-cautious, but depending on how much it costs to carry it seems prudent to me.

With respect to the insurance coverage, I get what you guys are saying on a level. Insurance will only replace what it costs to replace the photograph. I get it. Except when I think in terms of a painting for example. What did that cost to produce? Say a $1000 (retail) painting is stolen. That probably cost a tenth of the price to produce. I'd be surprised that it gets insured for the cost. Is this any different? What if it's a famous painting and worth much more? They must insure its value, not its cost. I'm sure this is all spelled out in the policy, if such a thing exists. Based on the responses so far, maybe it doesn’t. I can’t believe I’m the first person to ask this question.

J-Blake, a painting (an actual original) is insured on a agreed-value policy in which the actual value in dollars of the original is assessed by an independent party and that valuation is used, with the premium reflecting it.

Same thing can be selected for most boats. You can buy an "agreed value" policy (rather than "actual cash value") in which you have the boat surveyed by someone the insurance company agrees to (at your expense, natch) and that is the value. If the vessel is a total loss they cut you a check for "X".

Needless to say such insurance is rather more expensive, and it's also only available in the event the company believes you wouldn't have a reason to go out and sink the boat! If the agreed value is hideously out of line with replacement cost then that sort of insurance is likely to be unobtanium -- or the additional cost is going to be so high you'd never select it.

In the case of an original painting the situation is different as there is no replacement possible.

In your situation the only rational insurance to carry is replacement cost -- but I would instead expect your agreement with the gallery to specify that they have "contents" coverage on their insurance in the event of casualty or theft, and possibly ask them to name you as an additional insured to the extent that your product is destroyed or stolen. This is an ordinary cost of operating their business and I would be very surprised if they do not have said contents coverage. If you have a material number of works there compared against the whole of their gallery, and expect to for a long period of time (e.g. a year or more) they should be willing to do this. The only reasonable expectation you have for that, however, would be for replacement cost.

J-Blake wrote in post #16743287
Thanks for the replies everyone. I guess you're right that the best I can get is replacement, but that constitutes the $3K that's on the wall today and hopefully increases in the future! Yes, printing is relatively cheap, but these are large(er) prints and each is either plaque mounted or in a mat/frame and those are not. Each one costs me between $75 - $200 depending on size and mounting style.

Then that is the cost that you should look to get insurance cover on - less any excess that the company requires you to take. You will not be able to get insurance to cover your profit - reinstatement to the status quo is what insurance is for.

J-Blake wrote in post #16743287
Beyond that, what about less tangible costs like gas, my equipment, my car, etc. There are many costs which go into this and each one has a portion in every photo. Then there's my time on each photo. Shouldn't that be compensated? No offense, but you guys who are looking at this as just the cost to print a photo are thinking about this like a person, not a business.

You are insuring the prints, not the time and effort that you put into capturing the images in the first place - if the shop burns down you won't have to reshoot all the images will you - your expense will be limited to having the images reprinted / matted / frames etc.

J-Blake wrote in post #16743287
I realize the chance of something happening is remote.......just like regular insurance. My home has never been broken into or caught on fire, but I still carry insurance in case it does. Perhaps I’m being over-cautious, but depending on how much it costs to carry it seems prudent to me.

You would be better to make sure that the shop covers your products in their insurance - that way you may have some opportunity to recover an element of profit in the event of a total loss scenario.

Let me try to explain my thinking.

You supply a print to the shop for them to sell on your behalf - The ticket price is $500 and the shop retains a percentage or flat fee from the sale - they have to profit from the deal as well don't they.

An example may be (numbers made up) :

A sale of $500 results in a split of $150 to the shop, $350 to you.

You make $350 less your costs (say) $200 - so your profit is $150.

If you supply the print to the shop and insure it yourself your only claim as a result of loss would be $200 - i.e. your costs.

If you were to supply the prints to the shop on a Sale or Return basis then the same print would be covered under their policy to the tune of $350 - i.e. their cost of replacement. You would still get your profit in the event of a loss.

J-Blake wrote in post #16743287
With respect to the insurance coverage, I get what you guys are saying on a level. Insurance will only replace what it costs to replace the photograph. I get it. Except when I think in terms of a painting for example. What did that cost to produce? Say a $1000 (retail) painting is stolen. That probably cost a tenth of the price to produce. I'd be surprised that it gets insured for the cost. Is this any different? What if it's a famous painting and worth much more? They must insure its value, not its cost. I'm sure this is all spelled out in the policy, if such a thing exists. Based on the responses so far, maybe it doesn’t. I can’t believe I’m the first person to ask this question.

Insurance covers the "cost to replace" the item. As I've shown above the cost to replace is different depending on who you are.

Your example of a famous painting highlights this - the paintings are not generally insured by the artists but by the people who buy them.

If I wanted to insure a Picasso I would have to agree with the insurance company a valuation beforehand and pay a premium based on this agreed cost - for example my home policy places a limit on the value of any one item - anything above this value must be declared and the premium I pay goes up accordingly.

Like I said, I get it. Thanks Nightstalker and Tickerguy for taking the time to explain. However, we got off the topic a bit and I'd like to steer it back.

My perception of the owner is that she is not “savvy” to the ways of business and I have concerns that if I push the issue it could lead to my termination from being able to show at her store. I don’t know this, but can foresee this scenario as a possibility. For all I know it’s a non-issue and she is willing to sign a contract to that end. But another possibility is she won’t. What if she doesn’t have insurance, or if she does is there anything to force her to pay me in the event of a claim? Perhaps I’m over thinking it all (as suggested above) but I’d rather explore all options and make an informed decision on the risk. I know I can approach her, but if obtaining a policy solves my problem and keeps her out of it then I’d like to explore the option as well. It’s as simple as that.

That said, do any of you have a policy which covers this or something like this? If not, how about those of you showing your work at art shows. Do you insure your work against vandalism, weather, or theft? I see this as similar, though I could be missing something.

Thanks again all for the responses thus far!