Insurance.

Messages
351
Name
Lee Parker
Edit My Images
Yes
Im looking at this at the moment and have seen the previous posts on here, but they were a few years ago.

Any recommendations??

Got about 10k worth of gear (shhh don't tell the mrs!!)

And was thinking that I need public liability if I'm pitch side?

Cheers
 
you shouldnt be going poitchside without public liability cover.. clubs shouldnt be letting you there unless they are prepared to cover you themselves..

try www.cliik.co.uk
 
Thanks Kipax, Ive not been pitch side at all due to this. All my stuff so far has been from behind the barriers. Cliik are on my list.
 
Thanks Kipax, Ive not been pitch side at all due to this. All my stuff so far has been from behind the barriers. Cliik are on my list.


phoitoguard the most expensive... adduki the most ignorant and cliik the most helpful.. have been wiht all three for a number of yrs each.. photoguard was great as you could go online and change allsorts of things and reg dereg equipment... but they put there prices up to silly... adduki looked good but take a week to answer simple emails and only then when pushed.. very unhelpful to boot... cliik has been great... however I have never made a claim with any and thats the most important info.. not many have...
 
Thats exactly the sort of info needed. Cheers.
Aaduki seem expensive initially but I've not compared like for like. Photoguard have already contacted me and weren't at all pushy over the phone, which earns them points straight away. None of the "if you buy today, we'll give you the entire world for nothing"
....etc etc ad nauseum
 
I'm with photoguard and unfortunately had to make a claim as I was on holiday on Cyprus and managed to drop my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 (the only lens I took!) on concrete :crying:

I found them really good to deal with. I sent the lens off to Canon and got a quote to fix it, then contacted photoguard and told them what happend (pretty sure I should have got in touch with them first, but hey ho). They came back in a few days and authorised Canon to make the repairs, but once Canon opened my lens up they said it was a total mess inside and was BER. Rang photoguard up expecting them to get funny about the change, but they didn't. A couple days later they told me that they had ordered a brand new lens from a local-ish store and it would be posted to me. Didn't have to pay a penny in excess either, but I think that's changed now.

They are quite expensive though, I pay about £35 a month for my cover and I have about half of what the OP is trying to insure. I wasn't aware that they were hugely over priced though, so I might have to look into one of the other listed options once my renewal comes up in December lol
 
I use Cliik and have made a claim through them. Couldn't fault the service I got from them
 
Im looking at this at the moment and have seen the previous posts on here, but they were a few years ago.

Any recommendations??

Got about 10k worth of gear (shhh don't tell the mrs!!)

And was thinking that I need public liability if I'm pitch side?

Cheers
If you don't NEED public liability insurance don't buy it.It has become a racket making money for insurance companies and is used as a way of keeping amateur photographers away from other side of the fence locations. I have it because I am forced to have it in order to access the locations.If I was not forced there is no way I would have it the risks are far to small.
 
If you don't NEED public liability insurance don't buy it.It has become a racket making money for insurance companies and is used as a way of keeping amateur photographers away from other side of the fence locations. I have it because I am forced to have it in order to access the locations.If I was not forced there is no way I would have it the risks are far to small.


that has to be the worse advice I have seen in this section..
 
Now how did I just know the one and only was going to bite.LOL


bite? oh it was a trick was it? sorry.. I am over 7 yrs old you know :(

TBH offering advice on this forum becomes more of a waste of time every week............
 
Kipax.I object to being forced into getting PLI in order to gain access to non public areas where I pose the least possible risk to anyone. Bear in mind that I have to be careless or negligent in order for a claim to be made against me. It should be for me to decide if I want to accept the risk in these cases.

Motoring law requires that we have insurance and I agree with that because there is a great chance that a collision will occur at some point and the results always involve money ect. But seriously in reality how many football/sports togs have ever had a claim made against them? I know of or have never even heard of a Tog having a claim against them. If PLI fees reflected the risk, that might be different, but in that case it would be a £5 a year.

Also there is A sports were the pro sports men/women are at risk from Togs which do not require PLI at all. In the last 10 yrs this has become a racket. Fancy this being told that I(yes I!) need £2,000000 of PLI to stand in the middle of a race circuit with cars racing around me at 150Mph that can crash and kill me! Barmy.
 
My biggest fear is to die and the wife sell all my photo gear for what I told her I paid for it!
That's exactly what I said last week just before I boarded the plane at City airport after hearing about all the storms through Northern Europe :LOL:

Shapeshifter - as the context the question was asked was about pitchside activities, PL insurance is quite important and relevant. These are public areas also. PL also covers the photographer if a player comes bowling over and gets injured on your equipment, I have had several near misses where players have nearly clattered over the advertising hoardings into me and I think Kipax himself ended up underneath a few players once.
 
But I would not be at fault if a player comes bowling over so there could be no claim against me. PLI is for if I am careless or negligent it is not there for sportsmen who get injured in the normal course of there employment. My insurer would require that I had been at fault in some way otherwise they would not pay out. Photographers have rights as well you know.
 
Ah good point. But insurance is there to protect you as a photographer and although it may not have happened yet, in the event it may happen, you will not be out of pocket. I'm intrigued now to find out if claims have been made against photographers in that instance. I only deal with underwriting statistics not claims.
 
But I would not be at fault if a player comes bowling over so there could be no claim against me. PLI is for if I am careless or negligent it is not there for sportsmen who get injured in the normal course of there employment. My insurer would require that I had been at fault in some way otherwise they would not pay out. Photographers have rights as well you know.

Um yes you would. If a player piles into you on the touchline and gets injured by your kit, then you are most definitely at fault. The reasoning being that if you were not there, the injury caused by the kit would not have occured.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that's how insurance and insurance claims work.

As an extra FYI, PL is probably the smallest proportion of your insurance premium along with PI (which really is utterly useless in most cases).
 
But I would not be at fault if a player comes bowling over so there could be no claim against me. PLI is for if I am careless or negligent it is not there for sportsmen who get injured in the normal course of there employment. My insurer would require that I had been at fault in some way otherwise they would not pay out. Photographers have rights as well you know.
WOW, how ignorant are you, you seriously need to tell that to the player/club who claimed against a collegues PLI after he got injured when he was tackled into touch and broke his rib after falling on his flight case
 
Ah good point. But insurance is there to protect you as a photographer and although it may not have happened yet, in the event it may happen, you will not be out of pocket. I'm intrigued now to find out if claims have been made against photographers in that instance. I only deal with underwriting statistics not claims.
see my post above, it happens and claims are made and paid out.
 
Cheers guys, I was trying to think of the possibilities
 
Kip
bite? oh it was a trick was it? sorry.. I am over 7 yrs old you know :(

TBH offering advice on this forum becomes more of a waste of time every week............

Kipax, from my point of view please keep giving advice.
Am i always going to do everything you advise, who knows? But i WILL read it and acknowledge the fact that you earn a living from doing this and so must know something!!?? And advise from here has already helped me become a better photographer...I think??
 
Um yes you would. If a player piles into you on the touchline and gets injured by your kit, then you are most definitely at fault. The reasoning being that if you were not there, the injury caused by the kit would not have occured.

It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, that's how insurance and insurance claims work.

As an extra FYI, PL is probably the smallest proportion of your insurance premium along with PI (which really is utterly useless in most cases).
That completely wrong.LOL. My car is on the road and someone crashes into it and I am to blame because if it had not been there the collision would not have occured. I need an icon where the little man is rolling around laughing.How have you got the nerve to post such rubbish.Good god man delete your post.
 
How have I got the nerve?

a) Because a long, long time ago I used to be a Lloyds Reinsurance Broker
b) Because, later, I used to work for a firm of loss adjusters
c) Because I am a full time sports photographer
d) Because I've studied media law specialising in photography.

Do feel free to continue making an idiot out of yourself though.
 
WOW, how ignorant are you, you seriously need to tell that to the player/club who claimed against a collegues PLI after he got injured when he was tackled into touch and broke his rib after falling on his flight case
You say that Gary.Please lets see the evidence Gary, how a photographer who is an authorised location for which he has had to request permission and has been granted is liable because a player leaves the field and damages the photographers equipment.The photographer is the one who was in the correct location.

What I see here is the "Oh the big well paid football clubs and players call the shots and the normal law of liability does not apply." Well normal law of liability does apply .So Gary lets see the facts of this or any where a photographer got sued when he has not been careless or negligent both requirements for compensation.

It cannot be said that just because a player crashes into a photographer that the photographer is to blame.
 
How have I got the nerve?

a) Because a long, long time ago I used to be a Lloyds Reinsurance Broker
b) Because, later, I used to work for a firm of loss adjusters
c) Because I am a full time sports photographer
d) Because I've studied media law specialising in photography.

Do feel free to continue making an idiot out of yourself though.
Oh I see how silly of me. What a Complete idiot I am. I must remember not take the car out in case someone runs into it from behind because if it had not been there the collision would not have occured.Thanks for the info.Lloyds eh! the best.

Applications are still open for next years series of the Apprentice if your interested.LOL
 
Ignoring all the insults flying about it would be helpful to the thread readers to resolve this issue. How can we do that? Could we ask one of the companies who offer PL to help us out or would that be expecting too much? The question would be something along the lines of " If we are going about our business of taking pictures at a sports event in an approved spot, having obtained accreditation to do so, and should a player/participant in the sport crash into us and injure him/herself would he or she be able to make a successful claim against us" Is that it? If so, who should we try to elicit an answer from?
No more insults please!
 
You say that Gary.Please lets see the evidence Gary, how a photographer who is an authorised location for which he has had to request permission and has been granted is liable because a player leaves the field and damages the photographers equipment.The photographer is the one who was in the correct location.

What I see here is the "Oh the big well paid football clubs and players call the shots and the normal law of liability does not apply." Well normal law of liability does apply .So Gary lets see the facts of this or any where a photographer got sued when he has not been careless or negligent both requirements for compensation.

It cannot be said that just because a player crashes into a photographer that the photographer is to blame.
The evidence is i was sat next to him (PM me and ill supply his name) when the incident happened, the tog in question knew he was gonna get stung, he was working as a freelancer for our local newspaper, he was questioned after the game and asked for his insurance details as were the sports governing body who issued him his credentials, he was asked for and gave a number of statements over the next couple of months and thought that was that until he got his PLI renewal notice which has gone up with an explanation as to why.

If you need anymore evidence then i can only assume you are calling me a liar and if so i hope an 18st prop breaks a few ribs when he bounces off your head

You might also want to ask the Widnes photographer and any other photographer who covers games at Widnes why they now have to sit in the stands to cover the game.
 
No more insults please!


At the risk of sounding like a school child, if someone starts throwing insults at me, then I'll be chucking them straight back - only usually with a bit more thought process involved.

This is meant to be discussing a 'professional' area of sports coverage. All I can see is someone who wants to take the mickey.

Not a great approach!
 
Oh and, no one is saying the photographer is to blame, like you say he is working in an area he is assigned to work, what everyone is saying is that you must by the rules of the sports governing body have PLI in place to cover for any potential claims.
 
The evidence is i was sat next to him (PM me and ill supply his name) when the incident happened, the tog in question knew he was gonna get stung, he was working as a freelancer for our local newspaper, he was questioned after the game and asked for his insurance details as were the sports governing body who issued him his credentials, he was asked for and gave a number of statements over the next couple of months and thought that was that until he got his PLI renewal notice which has gone up with an explanation as to why.

If you need anymore evidence then i can only assume you are calling me a liar and if so i hope an 18st prop breaks a few ribs when he bounces off your head

You might also want to ask the Widnes photographer and any other photographer who covers games at Widnes why they now have to sit in the stands to cover the game.
How can he get stung when he has done nothing wrong? You are not daft you know that in order for a claim to be made against you you have to have done something wrong.Just being at the pitch side taking photos and a player comes of the field on onto you is not your fault in any way.You have to have done something wrong to have a claim against you.
There is no need for the lying bit Gary.I just want the facts because it makes no sens to me and I am surprised it does to you.
If a player came off the pitch and bust my gear I would be claiming off his public liability for damage to my gear.That makes sens to me he is the one who has strayed outside the pitch. I also think it is most peoples understanding of the law.
 
Listen thicko youre making this personal calling me a liar, stop it there and stop it now, im not joking now you childish pratt, all you have ever done since you joined this community is spout s***e and troll.
 
Last edited:
Gary.I am not calling you a liar. all I want to know how these togs are having claims made against them when they have had their gear smashed up because a player has come off the pitch.The players have PLI so they should be paying for the damage to the togs for his gear. I know that PLI is obligatory for FA and some other sports and that is what my original moan was about. I think it should be up to the individual to assess their own risk and take insurance if they want to or not.

it's not just for football some motorsport is the same even when all the risk to danger is against the photographer. I have been told I need PLI to stand in the middle of an airfield with cars racing around me at 150mph ehe! and I need PLI. I could not injure anyone if I tried.
 
Right, enough!!

The question was about where to look for the insurance coverage required by the sports in order to be pitch side, not whether you should need it, that is irrelevant, that fact is you do whether you like it or not, so stop ruining the OP's thread and dragging into a debate and talking rubbish.

Back to the question in hand.
 
I just want know how a Tog can be blamed when a player leaves the pitch and damages someones gear.The Tog has done nothing wrong so I don't see how he can have a claim against him.Do you Gary? can you see how the Tog is to blame?
I dont care to be honest, when i shot professionally you needed to provide evidence you had £2,000,000 PLI, end of story, you either bought PLI for what ever reason or didnt get accreditation, cant be any more simple than that can it, your point is a different topic so start a different thread.
 
Blimey!

The reason for me asking was because eventually I might be good enough to do this more seriously and I know to go pitch sidecar most semi or pro sports you need some insurance. As well as gear insurance.
 
Why is that when ever somebody asks to them a normal question do people seem to go off on tangents?
This then got me thinking (as somebody who has always had PL insurance due to the nature of my work)
if you were just at the local park taking a few snaps of say eg footy and a player crashed in to you injuring himself would he be able to claim?
If so it would be prudent to ensure all snappers has PL insurance?
 
Back
Top