Insuring an EOS 5D and 450D

sarkozy

Hi, I'm hoping for a little advice.

I have a 5D Mk II and my OH has a 450D. I need to itemise them on the house insurance, but I'm not sure the best way to do this.

Should I put down the replacement cost of the nearest equivalent camera in production today? And what would that be for the 450D?

Or is it something else I should be doing? The insurance broker has said it's my responsibility to estimate.

M5

sarkozy wrote: »

Hi, I'm hoping for a little advice.

I have a 5D Mk II and my OH has a 450D. I need to itemise them on the house insurance, but I'm not sure the best way to do this.

Should I put down the replacement cost of the nearest equivalent camera in production today? And what would that be for the 450D?

Or is it something else I should be doing? The insurance broker has said it's my responsibility to estimate.

Never insure for more than they are worth, even if your insurance has a new for old policy

endacl

I'd look at what camera bodies would best replace what you have now, giving you the same functionality and allowing you to use your existing lenses. That'd be your valuation.

M5

endacl wrote: »

I'd look at what camera bodies would best replace what you have now, giving you the same functionality and allowing you to use your existing lenses. That'd be your valuation.

but thats also illegal. the property is worth what its worth, to declare otherwise is a waste of money and could invalidate your insurance.

Best check with your insurer first to make sure

endacl

M5 wrote: »

but thats also illegal. the property is worth what its worth, to declare otherwise is a waste of money and could invalidate your insurance.

Best check with your insurer first to make sure

It's not illegal if the insurance company replace for like, as opposed to pay a book value, a la motor insurance. As a for instance, I bought a guitar for 2k in the 90's. it's insured for more than six times that amount, because that's what it would cost to replace.

M5

endacl wrote: »

It's not illegal if the insurance company replace for like, as opposed to pay a book value, a la motor insurance. As a for instance, I bought a guitar for 2k in the 90's. it's insured for more than six times that amount, because that's what it would cost to replace.

yes that is absolutely correct, BUT, only if the insurance is new for old. Best to check with your insurer as if its not and you insure something for 1k (replacement cost) and its actually worth about 300 quid your insurer will pay you 300 quid and you will have paid a premium for a 1k item. Also the insurer can say you lied about the actual value and refuse to pay. I repeat, its best to speak with the insurer to confirm which is the case before taking out a policy to ensure you know exactly what you need to cover.

Balfey1972

Sarkozy

Check with your insurance company and make sure they offer new for old cover. Most do.
Add them as itemised under the all risks section of your house insurance and insure them for the value of the nearest replacement camera body of each one.

The excess should range from €50 to €100 (ie the first portion of any claim you have to pay) and it is normally between 1% to 2% of the replacement value of the item. All insurers differ on their rate and cover they provide
Also check that they provide you with full theft cover under their all risks cover ( cover from a locked boot from an unattended vehicle for example) and also worldwide cover allowing you to travel with them whilst still providing you with cover.

Cork Boy

Balfey1972 wrote: »

Sarkozy



The excess should range from €50 to €100 (ie the first portion of any claim you have to pay) and it is normally between 1% to 2% of the replacement value of the item. All insurers differ on their rate and cover they provide

The 1 or 2% is assuming they'll be listed as unspecified items. If any item is worth more than say €1200 it'll have to be specified which is charged at ~10% of value.

Also, some companies insist anything beyond a point and shoot be specified. Just be double careful and 100% honest with your broker.

If you do have to specify btw, I'd be more inclined to look into a dedicated photo equipment insurer. Pretty sure there's one plugging around Dublin through one of the camera shops or something.

pullandbang

Cork Boy wrote: »

If you do have to specify btw, I'd be more inclined to look into a dedicated photo equipment insurer. Pretty sure there's one plugging around Dublin through one of the camera shops or something.

You don't have to look that far - he just posted before you there

sarkozy

endacl wrote: »

It's not illegal if the insurance company replace for like, as opposed to pay a book value, a la motor insurance. As a for instance, I bought a guitar for 2k in the 90's. it's insured for more than six times that amount, because that's what it would cost to replace.

Thanks for the replies.

Endacl's comment makes sense to me. For example, I will also be itemising a 1990s electric guitar, and it makes sense to insure it for the amount it would cost to replace in a shop in Ireland.

Likewise with the MkII, I am assuming the cost to replace this would be equal to the cost of a new MkIII (if no unused MkII is available).

A friend previously had an SLR stolen while on holidays (living at home on his parents' policy) and the option was replacement with an inferior equivalent or cash, which he took instead. The policy was like-for-like-or-nearest or the amount insured for less the excess, which didn't actually cover the camera.

I'm still confused, and was quite taken aback when the broker told me I had to work valuations out even though I'm paying them. They wouldn't give me the advice.

I need to sort this before the policy expires next week.

Cork Boy

pullandbang wrote: »

You don't have to look that far - he just posted before you there

It still stands though. Specified items can be more expensive to insure than going to an actual dedicated camera equip insurer.

Sarkozy, your brokers aren't valuers. They can't tell you what your camera is worth or how much it would cost to replace it.

Balfey1972

Cork Boy wrote: »

It still stands though. Specified items can be more expensive to insure than going to an actual dedicated camera equip insurer.

Sarkozy, your brokers aren't valuers. They can't tell you what your camera is worth or how much it would cost to replace it.

Cork Boy, They should be always listed as specified items. Most have an inner limit on unspecified and also exclude items such as camera equipment, ipods, phones etc in the small print.

You also need to make sure that even as specified items there are no further exclusions or terms applying specific to camera equipment.

All policies differ and each insurer can have various channels offering their policies and they can have several variations of wordings through each channel they provide, from example direct or through a broker.

We do offer specified camera insurance. The reason I posted above is that unless you are earning an income from your photography work it is cheaper to note it 'specified' on your household policy most of the time as the amateur rates are much higher than those of a person that earns an income from their work on specific policies. So unless you are earning an income from your work the rate will be higher than that of a dedicated policy.

Sarkozy, all you need to insure your equipment is for the replacement cost of that model or the next available model. Even if you purchased it second hand make sure you cover it for the replacement cost as a new item.

Sarkozy, Please feel free to give me a call in the office and I'll talk you through the options open to you.
We are an insurance broker that specialise in multimedia insurance and I have been in the insurance business for over 23 years.

Derek
01 8408060

Cork Boy

Balfey1972 wrote: »

Cork Boy, They should be always listed as specified items. Most have an inner limit on unspecified and also exclude items such as camera equipment, ipods, phones etc in the small print.

Huh, on HIQS/Spike only camcorders were specified and then it was just a matter of checking the any one item limit on the quotes you got. iPhones were kinda new and yeah, most insurers excluded them and referred you over to getcover.ie I think. If I was an underwriter I wouldn't touch iPhones tbh.

I've no idea how much his gear is worth, I was just under the impression that if he was asking about insuring it it'd be quiet valuable but yes, the dedicated policies tend to include Prof Indemnity and the like but I came across one before that lets you pick and choose between equipment, liability, etc.

Fun read for the rest of ye I bet!

sarkozy

Balfey1972 wrote: »

Cork Boy, They should be always listed as specified items. Most have an inner limit on unspecified and also exclude items such as camera equipment, ipods, phones etc in the small print.

You also need to make sure that even as specified items there are no further exclusions or terms applying specific to camera equipment.

All policies differ and each insurer can have various channels offering their policies and they can have several variations of wordings through each channel they provide, from example direct or through a broker.

We do offer specified camera insurance. The reason I posted above is that unless you are earning an income from your photography work it is cheaper to note it 'specified' on your household policy most of the time as the amateur rates are much higher than those of a person that earns an income from their work on specific policies. So unless you are earning an income from your work the rate will be higher than that of a dedicated policy.

Sarkozy, all you need to insure your equipment is for the replacement cost of that model or the next available model. Even if you purchased it second hand make sure you cover it for the replacement cost as a new item.

Sarkozy, Please feel free to give me a call in the office and I'll talk you through the options open to you.
We are an insurance broker that specialise in multimedia insurance and I have been in the insurance business for over 23 years.

Derek
01 8408060

Thanks, Derek. I took your advice. I was wondering around second-hand aspect, too. I went to a city centre camera shop and they helped me out with replacement models and valuations. I just hope my specified items don't set me back more than I can afford on top of the regular insurance quote.

CabanSail

Did you also specify the lenses?

If you make a claim for a 5D MkII and/or a 450D as specified items, they can be pedantic and cover the "Body Only". Specify which lens/es you are using. If they are the Kit Lenses, note which one and a replacement cost.