Read your camera insurance smallprint?

microbike

microbike

Messages
116
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
No
I recently broke my lovely Sigma 105mm macro Canon fit lens, which I bought in 2005, but it was carefully used and was estimated at a replacement cost of £399.00 - £415.00.

Well my camera insurers E&L Insurance firm have a set XS of £150 which I was prepared for, but they've docked £160 for something they've called 'depreciation'.

I can't go and buy another duplicate lens for the amount they've paid out. What are other peoples opinions of this? Is it fair, or is my Sigma (boxed with all instructions and manuals) really worth so much less?
 
I do feel for you, but that kind of clause is one of the first I'd check it had; new for old, as the excess less depreciation equals b****r all for lenses of that kind of value...
 
With E&L sadly you have to fight all the way for settlement, if you can get secondhand prices you should be able to prove that the depreciation is too much and get a more realistic payout.
 
Worst company out there in my opinion. Do a search on here for insurance and sit down with a beer.


Kev.
 
I'll probably be going with Imaging Insurance, they given a very good quote, so just need to read the small print
 
Chubb insurance - excellent in every way. new for old, fast turn round on claims and a little bit more on the premium. I am in about my 10th year with them - yes, I shop about every year at renewal,but I keep going back to them provided they are not very far out from other quotes.
 
I, like quite a few others on here use photoguard. It's new for old, so you insure your kit for the new replacement value, and if it breaks/gets dropped/stolen etc you get a new piece of equipment.

Never had to make a claim, and hopefully never will (fingers crossed) but people on here have done so, and while it can be a pain to do, I haven't heard of them not paying out.
 
microbike said:
Is it fair?
Click to expand...
Yes it is fair, because you don't have a new-for-old policy and the premiums you've been paying would reflect that. If your policy were new-for-old then it would cost more.
 
Thats the first thing i checked with Imaging Insurance plus they are able to over PL and PI cover and they provide Worldwide cover and some other very nice features


(won't list them all or it will sound like advertising ;))
 
I am going to have a good read of my E&L policy as both mine and Eileens gear is insured with them and we have been for 3 years without a claim so looks like we may be making a switch very soon if things dont add up.
 
The smallprint on E&L policies make it virtually impossible to pursue a successful claim, that's why their so cheap...
 
chris321 said:
I, like quite a few others on here use photoguard. It's new for old, so you insure your kit for the new replacement value, and if it breaks/gets dropped/stolen etc you get a new piece of equipment.

Never had to make a claim, and hopefully never will (fingers crossed) but people on here have done so, and while it can be a pain to do, I haven't heard of them not paying out.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
i chose photoguard as well, new for old. asked them specifically in regards to second hand stuff, and they advised insure at the full replacement cost for a new item. i'm not sure how worth it is at the moment, as going on their advice my 1d mk2 is now insured for the cost of a new 1d, and the premiums a bit heavy....that being said i'd be lost if anything happened to it :-p
 
I think what we should also remember is to insure for a reasonable replacement price at todays value. Not so much with bodies but take the 300 2.8 I purchased at £2600 2 years ago, I now have it insured for £3800 even with a new for old policy.
 
Two things to remember with all insurance:

1. You get what you pay for - new for old is available but it's based on a higher value and costs more. As has been pointed out you need to constantly review values upwards. Also cheap companies apply terms and conditions more vigourously, that's why they are cheap.

2. The underlying principle of insurance is to put you back in the same position financially after the loss as you were before. Therefore they will apply depreciation. You need to verify if what they have applied is reasonable. Check prices of a lens in similar condition as yours and go argue your case, if they have not offered enough. The excess is separate to all this.

I would never accept the first offer unless it was reasonable.

Good luck,
Ken
 
Nikon Ken said:
Two things to remember with all insurance:



2. The underlying principle of insurance is to put you back in the same position financially after the loss as you were before. Therefore they will apply depreciation. You need to verify if what they have applied is reasonable. Check prices of a lens in similar condition as yours and go argue your case, if they have not offered enough. The excess is separate to all this.
Click to expand...
does depreciation apply on a new for old policy?
 
No. When you take out insurance you choose market value or new for old. Depreciation applies to get the market value.

Traditionally insurance companies had a scale. For example, the average life of a cassette recorder (yes, I am that old!) was regarded as 5 years. I believe there is a clear secondhand market for most items, especially camera equipment that enables you to do your own research and challenge the insurer, if there offer is not fair. After all, the contractual terms apply both ways. Don't be fobbed off with a bad offer but be reasonable and prepared to prove what you are asking for.

I am retired now but at one stage in my life I used to write the wordings of insurance policies. Always read carefully.

Ken
 
Nikon Ken said:
No. When you take out insurance you choose market value or new for old. Depreciation applies to get the market value.
Click to expand...

Understood. Got a bit worried there for a minute! One thing that gets me on policies is that depending on how you look at things, anything could be classed as negligence. For instance if you drop your camera, and you're not wearing the neckstrap. Or it gets dropped off the side of a building, shouldn't you not have been leaning over? I had a word with photoguard though, and they were adament that if you trip or drop your camera, then its accidental. still, i hope i never have to put it to the test!
 
it's negotiable until you accept their offer.

make sure that you can replace the kit, minus the £150 excess. then present them with the evidence
they are not around to help you out....they are around to screw you over. they are an insurance company,
having said that I've claimed twice in three years with photoguard and their customer service and response was excellent both times.
 
I agree with Matt to an extent. I cannot agree that all companies are out to screw you. They investigate more than they used to and they require more proof but that's because there have been more and more fraudulent claims, including hyping the value of the lost or damaged item.

Some companies stick strongly to the terms and conditions and seek to hide behind them. If you have a genuine claim, you should have no problem but you do need to fight your corner stronger than in years gone by.

Remember the only real advertising is the word of mouth following a claim.

Topical at the moment because of the bad situation in Cumbria (my heart goes out to them), but it was always said that the best advertising for an insurer was a natural disaster. It emphasises the need for insurance and the importance of constantly reviewing the sum insured to reflect the current value.

Ken
 
I went with Photoguard in the end too. They were more expensive than some others but the recommendations on here convinced me.

They're also about the only place I can find that will cover you for the full value when kit is left in a locked car overnight without any daft conditions.
 
zoom said:
Photographic insurance (like all things to do with insurance, I guess) seems like a total minefield.
Click to expand...

agreed. i guess new for old is popular amongst companies because it stops hyping the value. theres simply no point in a fraudulent claim when you'll get exactly the same product back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top