Camera Gear insurance?

mystik610 wrote in post #17759662
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.

Sure, but you miss my point.

mystik610 wrote in post #17757025
Fact E: ... BUT insurance companies usually don't collect more in premiums than they payout in claims. [Snip].

Do you have source for this? All of my quick googling shows this to simply not be true in the vast majority of business lines.

mystik610 wrote in post #17759673
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.

Can't shoot anyone if/when I'm not home? What kind of KaliforniaKrazyTalk is that? Try to get into my car the next time you catch me at a red light.
Or, try to snatch one of my grandkids at the park. FAIR WARNING! I double-tap center mass and take a head shot before checking for effect. On second thought, at that point, it won't matter to you. Sorry, just the way I train. Google El Presidente / Jeff Cooper.

I don't care if someone breaks into my car when I'm not in it. Have at it. Take what you want. Take the car. At that point you are no threat to ME or MY FAMILY. Fires, storms, floods are all examples of things nobody can do anything about. Insurance can't prevent any of the things you mention. A well-prepared, well-armed, law-abiding citizen with an adequate means of convincing the bad guy to lay down and bleed can prevent a laundry list of things. As mentioned, insurance protects you from nothing, except financial loss. I mentioned above that I insure the things I can't afford to lose. Cameras just ain't one of those things.

tandemhearts wrote in post #17759690
Do you have source for this? All of my quick googling shows this to simply not be true in the vast majority of business lines.

It's pretty common knowledge actually..... But heres an excerpt from Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia​.org/wiki/Insurance

Also many insurance companies are mutual companies and actually don't have a profit seeking incentive when they price rates

tandemhearts wrote in post #17759690
Do you have source for this? All of my quick googling shows this to simply not be true in the vast majority of business lines.

That insurance doesn't actually protect anything? Of course it doesn't. It protects you from the financial burden of the loss because at the end of the day it's impossible to fully prevent a loss from happening. I suppose you could lock your gear in a safe all day to fully protect it from loss, but I'd rather use my gear as intended without worrying about what happens if my gear is stolen or something. Well worth 12.50 month.

Bassat wrote in post #17759729
Can't shoot anyone if/when I'm not home? What kind of KaliforniaKrazyTalk is that? Try to get into my car the next time you catch me at a red light.
Or, try to snatch one of my grandkids at the park. FAIR WARNING! I double-tap center mass and take a head shot before checking for effect. On second thought, at that point, it won't matter to you. Sorry, just the way I train. Google El Presidente / Jeff Cooper.

I don't care if someone breaks into my car when I'm not in it. Have at it. Take what you want. Take the car. At that point you are no threat to ME or MY FAMILY. Fires, storms, floods are all examples of things nobody can do anything about. Insurance can't prevent any of the things you mention. A well-prepared, well-armed, law-abiding citizen with an adequate means of convincing the bad guy to lay down and bleed can prevent a laundry list of things. As mentioned, insurance protects you from nothing, except financial loss. I mentioned above that I insure the things I can't afford to lose. Cameras just ain't one of those things.

I suspect what mystik610 meant is that you can't shoot someone breaking into your home when you're not at home.

Not sure about your part of the world but in the places I've lived in Canada most break-ins occur when no-ones at home.

Now home invasions - that's a different story.

Bassat wrote in post #17759729
Can't shoot anyone if/when I'm not home? What kind of KaliforniaKrazyTalk is that? Try to get into my car the next time you catch me at a red light.
Or, try to snatch one of my grandkids at the park. FAIR WARNING! I double-tap center mass and take a head shot before checking for effect. On second thought, at that point, it won't matter to you. Sorry, just the way I train. Google El Presidente / Jeff Cooper.

I don't care if someone breaks into my car when I'm not in it. Have at it. Take what you want. Take the car. At that point you are no threat to ME or MY FAMILY. Fires, storms, floods are all examples of things nobody can do anything about. Insurance can't prevent any of the things you mention. A well-prepared, well-armed, law-abiding citizen with an adequate means of convincing the bad guy to lay down and bleed can prevent a laundry list of things. As mentioned, insurance protects you from nothing, except financial loss. I mentioned above that I insure the things I can't afford to lose. Cameras just ain't one of those things.

I'm from Texas. I love my guns as much as anyone. But realistically a gun doesn't protect your gear from anything other than theft when you're there to protect it. If that's your only concern , then cool.

The point is that there are very many other things that can happen to your gear , and a gun is an incomplete method of insuring your gear

WaltA wrote in post #17759741
I suspect what mystik610 meant is that you can't shoot someone breaking into your home when you're not at home.

Not sure about your part of the world but in the places I've lived in Canada most break-ins occur when no-ones at home.

Now home invasions - that's a different story.

I believe you are correct. I mis-read his intent. And he is right. Burglary is a property crime. Only a complete moron, or a police officer, would walk into a house being burglarized and confront the criminal. I've pulled into my garage and found the door to the house broken open. I backed out and called police to clear the house. I was carrying a gun at the time. Nobody I care for was in the house. Take what you want buddy, I've got insurance.

mystik610 wrote in post #17759743
I'm from Texas. I love my guns as much as anyone. But realistically a gun doesn't protect your gear from anything other than theft when you're there to protect it. If that's your only concern , then cool.

The point is that there are very many other things that can happen to your gear , and a gun is an incomplete method of insuring your gear

I would never use a gun to protect property of any kind. If I left my camera on a park bench and you run off with it, I'll be calling the police, not drawing a gun. Deadly force only justified, at least in Indiana, when the offender is:

A.) In possession of a weapon capable of death or serious bodily injury. And...
B.) Is threatening to use that weapon to inflict death or serious bodily injury. And...
C.) Is within proximity to carry out that threat.

I don't understand why some folks believe I need insurance on my photo gear. If I am comfortable with the potential loss, isn't that OK? I don't mind a bit if you have it. I just don't feel the need.

mystik610 wrote in post #17759733
It's pretty common knowledge actually..... But heres an excerpt from Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia​.org/wiki/Insurance

Also many insurance companies are mutual companies and actually don't have a profit seeking incentive when they price rates

And yet, the Missouri Dept of Insurance would disagree with you.


http://insurance.mo.go​v/reports/lossratio/

Nonetheless, people are free to insure what they like or not, with a few exceptions.

I insure those things that would be a catastrophic loss. My camera gear doesn't fall into that category, so no special coverage for me. Inherent coverage from other policies (where applicable) works for me.

tandemhearts wrote in post #17759760
...
I insure those things that would be a catastrophic loss. My camera gear doesn't fall into that category, so no special coverage for me. Inherent coverage from other policies (where applicable) works for me.

Thank you. I don't feel quite as alone now.

tandemhearts wrote in post #17759760
And yet, the Missouri Dept of Insurance would disagree with you.

http://insurance.mo.go​v/reports/lossratio/

Nonetheless, people are free to insure what they like or not, with a few exceptions.

I insure those things that would be a catastrophic loss. My camera gear doesn't fall into that category, so no special coverage for me. Inherent coverage from other policies (where applicable) works for me.

Loss ratios are very fluid. Depends on how "hard" or "soft" the market is. Finding a sample of one market and one period of time doesn't really mean anything.

mystik610 wrote in post #17759736
That insurance doesn't actually protect anything? Of course it doesn't. It protects you from the financial burden of the loss because at the end of the day it's impossible to fully prevent a loss from happening. I suppose you could lock your gear in a safe all day to fully protect it from loss, but I'd rather use my gear as intended without worrying about what happens if my gear is stolen or something. Well worth 12.50 month.

This response answers a question that I don't think I asked. No disagreement from me.

Bassat wrote in post #17759753
I don't understand why some folks believe I need insurance on my photo gear. If I am comfortable with the potential loss, isn't that OK? I don't mind a bit if you have it. I just don't feel the need.

Not trying to impose anything on anyone so if it came off that way that wasn't my intention. Only point was that for those who want a comprehensive method of protecting their gear, a gun isn't a comprehensive solution.

Bigger fears for me are that a gear will be stolen from my house when I'm not home, or someone will knock a camera off a tripod or something.

mystik610 wrote in post #17759770
Not trying to impose anything on anyone so if it came off that way that wasn't my intention. Only point was that for those who want a comprehensive method of protecting their gear, a gun isn't a comprehensive solution.

Bigger fears for me are that a gear will be stolen from my house when I'm not home, or someone will knock a camera off a tripod or something.

and the only point I am trying to make is that insurance protects you from neither of those things. It only mitigates the financial aspect of the loss. Some of us are willing to take the risks of financial loss, others not. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

If insurance on your gear give you a feeling of security, then the chances of loss of your gear probably increase (even while the chance of financial loss are reduced).