Equipment / Business insurance?

[jp]

I wouldn't bother with insurance.

If you ran a real business and NEEDED insurance for liability and/or risk losing a $3000 wedding gig because a pelican case with all your DSLRs in it grew legs and disappeared, then be insured for a couple hundred dollars.

For recreational use or rare business opportunity you don't depend on, keep your money and take care of the equipment. In gambling, the house always wins they say, in insurance, you are the gambler and the insurance company is the house. Statistics are on their side and that's the business. Yeh, losing a leica or mamiya 7 would be pretty sad, but if they are paid for and you're not depending on it for income, and you have other cameras, you are not at risk. You just have a little bit less "stuff'.

[ROL]

I wouldn't bother with insurance.

If you ran a real business and NEEDED insurance for liability and/or risk losing a $3000 wedding gig because a pelican case with all your DSLRs in it grew legs and disappeared, then be insured for a couple hundred dollars.

For recreational use or rare business opportunity you don't depend on, keep your money and take care of the equipment. In gambling, the house always wins they say, in insurance, you are the gambler and the insurance company is the house. Statistics are on their side and that's the business. Yeh, losing a leica or mamiya 7 would be pretty sad, but if they are paid for and you're not depending on it for income, and you have other cameras, you are not at risk. You just have a little bit less "stuff'.

That's harsh. I suspect many of us are between the two extremes you define, being semi-professional – whatever that is. Even at that, a couple of hun a year isn't much for replacement that can easily go into the thousands in case the inevitable happens. Yes, unfortunately inevitable for many of us. I lost an entire M7II kit, locked and out of site in my vehicle, while parked for a short time in SF many years ago (I lived in SF near the Tenderloin for a couple of years and never suffered any losses). It was my main, and only 120 system at the time. True, I would have had less stuff – and also no need to buy any more 120 film (what a load lifted?!?). It would have been, and still is, an unrecoverable loss without insurance. It actually turned out better than that since Mamiya was offering free a lens with new body and lens purchase. It is unrealistic to believe that, try as we might, we are always in charge of our circumstances.

I understand the PPA, of which I have never been a member, for the sole reason that I do not consider myself to be a professional photographer, also offers a very good Square type substitute for POP on-line purchases.

[Drew Wiley]

Check your homeowner's as well as auto insurance theft policy first. Equip insurance for a business per se is generally much more expensive. IF your photography
business is a second source of income, or a "hobby" rather than your full time occupation, you MIGHT already be well covered, and covered with less deduction than
a business policy would entail. Or a modest rider to your existing coverage might be all you need. It doesn't hurt to ask your agent.

[Barry Trabitz]

If you qualify, USAA offers a very reasonable valuable property insurance policy.

[Wayne]

Exercise is the best insurance.

If you exercise and they steal your gear at least you'll have your health.

[Richard Johnson]

The problem with many policies is that if you do make a claim, the insurance company will go out of their way to prove that you are a professional, including searching forums like this one for your posts. Any indication that you are serious... so little as a Tumblr or a business card, will disqualify you from regular homeowners coverage.

All of the professional policies I've seen have bundled professional liability and electronics coverage along with photo equipment coverage, so you end up paying for more than you need in most cases. That's not a bad thing in most cases but I haven't seen any professional policy for less than $500/year with $10K equipment.

Also, actually making a claim and collecting is not for the faint of heart. So if $500/year is too much then self-insuring - or limiting how much gear you travel with - keeping your choices on the modest side - is not a bad policy. I wouldn't travel with a Mamiya and Leica kit myself, I'd opt for a smaller kit that I could keep on my person 24-7 or go with cheaper stuff. When we to China next year I'm taking good but reasonable priced gear that won't be irreplaceable even though I have a professional policy because I'd expect it might be $500 worth of hassle to make a claim should I have a problem overseas.

Frankly if you think you can afford expensive camera gear but balk at the insurance, then the reality is that you really can't afford the expensive camera gear at all.

[paulr]

The problem with many policies is that if you do make a claim, the insurance company will go out of their way to prove that you are a professional, including searching forums like this one for your posts. Any indication that you are serious... so little as a Tumblr or a business card, will disqualify you from regular homeowners coverage.

Do you know this from experience? If so, how recent and what state? I'm not doubting you, just trying to get the most accurate educated guesses. We're in the process of getting long-overdue homeowner's insurance and it would be nice to have my gear insured (for the first time ever).

My professional status is, shall we say, ambiguous. My annual income from photography has ranged from negative many-thousands to positive many-thousands. Far more negative years than positive, although inconveniently I'll have significant taxable photographic income this year (all from print sales and crowd-funding; none from commercial work).

I'm just hoping there's a way to include the gear on the regular homeowners plan. The deprecated value of the gear is probably under $8000.

[Ari]

Paul, there is some truth to what Richard has stated. The insurance companies will want to be clear on how you use your photo equipment (pro, amateur) so they can quote you rates accordingly.
I found a company in Canada, AON, that doesn't care whether or not you're a pro. They will insure your gear for whatever amount you want (minimum $5K, I believe), and if anything happens to it, file a claim and that's it.
They did away with some traditional variables such as percentage of income derived from photography, pro/amateur, etc., and made it more straightforward.
It was set up in response to the incredibly expensive insurance rates levied upon photographers in Canada who are, like you, ambiguously professional.
My quote for $20K worth of gear was about $650/year, and FWIW, I'm not a customer, just someone who looked into it.

[Corran]

I'm pretty sure if you get paid at any time and use your equipment for such, you will not be able to register it under your homeowners.

I researched this extensively for my audio equipment and was told that by my insurance company and many full-time pros in the business. Photo gear shouldn't be any different I don't think. You should consult your insurance company either way.

[paulr]

Thanks! That's all helpful. I'll do some more research.