Camera Gear insurance?

Bassat wrote in post #17756985
Yes, you can know enough about the chance of a loss to make an informed decision. It is very simple.
Fact A: Insurance companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. As such,
Fact B: Insurance companies DO know the odds of you having a loss. Therefore,
Fact C: Insurance companies will ALWAYS charge more for premiums than they pay out in claims.
Conclusion:
Fact D: Insurance of any kind is always a losing proposition until you have a loss.

Fact E: Insurance companies make money because by aggregating the risk of many people, they can better predict the cash inflows and outflows than you can as an individual. BUT insurance companies usually don't collect more in premiums than they payout in claims. Insurance is basically a commodity within a given market, so the margins are very narrow. Insurance companies actually earn their operating margin by investing the collected premiums in fixed income investments until claims are paid. They can do that better than you can, because by pooling the risk of thousands of people, they can predict when claims happen better than you can as an individual.

As a buyer, insurance is always a losing proposition really is always a losing proposition until you have a loss, but unless you know for certain when you'll have a loss and how severe it will be, you can't quantify the value of paying an insurance premium. By buying insurance, you're transferring the risk of an uncertain total loss for a certain cost of paying a premium....and there's value to that beyond the simple evaluation of cost of premiums vs what you expect to claim. Long story short, you're buying piece of mind, and that's a subjective decision no matter how much you try to quantify it.

Bassat wrote in post #17756985
You are not counting the entire cost of your insurance in the $5,000 vs. $12.50 per month scenario. What is your deductible? Ask you agent what a $5,000 claim will do to your rates. In my case, my home-owners/auto/motorcycle​/blanket coverage will increase by a bit more than $500 per year, for 5 years, if I make a claim. That $2,500 surcharge has to be figured into the cost of any 'free' camera my insurance company may provide for me.

I don't count the entire cost of insurance, because again, without knowing the statistical likelihood of a loss, I can't do a true cost benefit analysis to determine if I'm buying at a loss, breaking even, or coming out ahead. I'm paying for the certainty the majority of whatever losses I do occur will be covered by the insurance. I'm not going to bend over backwards to analyze whether or not I come out ahead, because qualitatively, $12.50 a month isn't much money and its well worth the piece of mind.

For the record, I don't have a deductible, and a loss doesn't have any impact on the rate charged on my actual house. Its technically a separate coverage that's rated separately, and any rate adjustments will apply to the scheduled camera gear only.

Bassat wrote in post #17756987
That is quite a deal! Care to share the company and your risk rating? I believe there is more to this story.

Well I have 2 cars, House, Blanket liability and personal property with them . I also use to have 3 trailers, snowmobile and camper with them as well.The company is Encompass and I am in NY also the coverage is $1,000 deductible more of a blanket coverage as they did not schedule out each item

Mystik610, we seem to agree on just about everything, except whether or not to insure camera gear. If I am wrong, and do suffer a loss, I will be out-of-pocket to replace my gear. If you are wrong, and never suffer a loss, you are only out a premium you find acceptable. Seems like we are both comfortable with our respective positions. Each is equally valid. Everyone needs to find their own level on this issue.

As was previously posted - to each their own.

However, my accountant wants me to fully insure all my equipment - cameras, lenses, laptops, GPS everything.

The cost of premiums and deductible is a wash anyway cause its all a tax write-off. So your only out-of-pocket til tax return time.

I have a "Home Business Plan" that includes home, contents, all computers and all camera and gear. Costs about $1000CDN per year for everything with $1000 deductible.

http://www.melochemonn​ex.com/en/residential/​inhomeoffice

Of course, accounting rules and insurance coverage may vary based on your country. And this is if your photography is your business. If your a hobbyist - it may not make sense.

Bassat wrote in post #17757185
Mystik610, we seem to agree on just about everything, except whether or not to insure camera gear. If I am wrong, and do suffer a loss, I will be out-of-pocket to replace my gear. If you are wrong, and never suffer a loss, you are only out a premium you find acceptable. Seems like we are both comfortable with our respective positions. Each is equally valid. Everyone needs to find their own level on this issue.

Yup. Totally subjective!

mystik610 wrote in post #17757233
Yup. Totally subjective!

True - - unless you have to follow "protocol" as I pointed out.

Then its neither subjective nor objective.

Merely following directions from your SME.

Sorry, SME?

SME. Wasn't he Captain Hook's side kick?

Or perhaps Subject Matter Expert?

I have a Personal Articles addition to my State Farm Insurance. It does not cost that much to insure my stuff. I do not believe in taking chances with my equipment.

NASS Photo wrote in post #17759395
I have a Personal Articles addition to my State Farm Insurance. It does not cost that much to insure my stuff. I do not believe in taking chances with my equipment.

If that is true, why bother with insurance?

Bassat wrote in post #17757814
Sorry, SME?

Sorry - SME = Subject Matter Expert

i.e. People that know more than me about the cost of doing business

NASS Photo wrote in post #17759395
I do not believe in taking chances with my equipment.

It's a common misconception that insurance protects the stuff it insures.

Archibald wrote in post #17759438
It's a common misconception that insurance protects the stuff it insures.

Much like a police department, insurance is useful only after the fact.

Which explains why I have a .44 SPL stoked w/165 gr. Corbon (wife doesn't trust auto-loaders) in the drawer, ready access to a .45 ACP w/230 grain Winchester ball, and two strategically located, and loaded, 12-gauge shotguns w/2-3/4" #4 Buck at the ready. The Mossberg 590 has already proved a better investment than 40 years of homeowners insurance.

Archibald wrote in post #17759438
It's a common misconception that insurance protects the stuff it insures.

Only if you don't understand the terms of the policy you're buying. The forms these things are covered under are standard and very straight forward. If you're adding coverage via your homeowners insurance, the coverage is typically provided on an "all risks" form...meaning any loss or damage to the equipment is covered unless explicitly excluded by the policy language.

Bassat wrote in post #17759454
Much like a police department, insurance is useful only after the fact.

Which explains why I have a .44 SPL stoked w/165 gr. Corbon (wife doesn't trust auto-loaders) in the drawer, ready access to a .45 ACP w/230 grain Winchester ball, and two strategically located, and loaded, 12-gauge shotguns w/2-3/4" #4 Buck at the ready. The Mossberg 590 has already proved a better investment than 40 years of homeowners insurance.

Except you can't shoot someone if you're not home....or aren't in your car when someone breaks into it. And you can't shoot a fire, windstorm, flood, etc etc etc. You can't shoot your camera out of the swimming pool it just fell into. etc etc.