Camera & Photographer Insurance - Link Posted

[Pirate!!]

Ahoy!

I've sourced a company that provides camera, photographer public liability and photographer indemnity insurance amongst other photography and other types of cover here.

Just for info. Hope this helps.

EDIT:

As an example, I entered an equipment value of £600.00 and opted for the £1M public liability . . premium = £37.00 per annum. There are other variables and options, but you'll have to decide for yourselves.

[Lawrenzini]

I thought you only needed public liability insurance if you were a Ltd company.

[Tobers]

Thanks - just gone for this myself. £88 for £2k's worth of gear with foreign travel included.

[Peakoverload]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

I thought you only needed public liability insurance if you were a Ltd company.

Where did you get that from?

Public Liability Insurance is a general term for any liability coverage for claims brought against the insured by a third party or member of the public.

If you set-up a tripod anywhere it is considered a hazard because it is a non permanent structure and won't have any high visibility signs or barriers around it. Therefore any member of the public that tripped and injured themselves over your tripod, camera bag or you laying on the ground trying to get than unusual angle would, potentially, be able to sue you for damages.

Businesses typically are the kind of people to take out this kind of insurance because a) they typically are the kinds of people that would be doing things that might be a danger to members of the public and b) in general we in the UK are not as litigious as say in the US. However this latter point is changing and also many photographers, especially those that do wedding photography (professionally or as a favour) may be refused entry to private locations unless they can prove that they have the correct level of insurance.

[Lawrenzini]

Ok my mistake, I meant it you were operating commercially.

[ginger113]

I am a freelance/self-employed/sole trader but not limited company, my trade being a cameraman. Through my industry's union, BECTU, we can opt for £3million public liability insurance for an extra £20pa on top of our subs. Whilst it is true to say that we are not as litigious as they are in the states, we're not getting far off! It is getting to be the case that some companies are starting to say that we need to have PLI to be able to work for them.

Nowadays, it is the individual as well as the company who will be held liable/prosecutable if negligence can be proven. It's debatable (sp?) whether they should actually demand it (after all, people go after the source of greater money and generally that will be the production company, not the freelancer).

As an individual it is just seeming to be ever more worthwhile to have some form of cover, especially if the consequences can be major fines, prosecution and even jail if the worst scenario occurs and lawyers can prove your negligence! (Not that PLI has anything to do with criminal law.....)

[Lawrenzini]

I suppose my point is that I don't see why you would be any more liable with a camera in your hand than without.

If you're a professional roofer you have public liability insurance. If you're doing your own roof or helping your mate with his you don't.

I just assumed the same applied to photography.

[Peakoverload]

If all you are doing is carrying 1 camera around your neck than you are right, there is little need for PIL. If however you carry a tripod/camera bag/lighting/reflectors or may lay on the ground where people are walking then it's increasingly becoming a good idea to get PIL. If you shoot professionally or are simply being paid as a one off to take a particular photo, especially if it's on private land, you need PIL

[ginger113]

Absolutely right. Basically, it's becoming less the attitude of 'how am I likely to cause any harm' and more 'could someone turn it so that what has happened is my fault?'. With so many of these 'Had an accident and not your fault? ... call us on 090...' adverts, there is an expectation that there is always a way to apportion blame on someone and to get money out of them.

I don't know what happens if it is a civil situation where one individual is affected by another who is just going about their life, but not working at the time. One example of this I heard years ago is if you brush snow/leaves off the pavement outside your house that makes the path slippery, or put water on the path that later turns to ice. If a member of the public falls and injures themselves by walking on the ice/sludge/slippery surface, it is deemed that you are at fault as you have undertook the action that has created the incident. Along those lines anyway - ie unless you can deal with the problem fully and make the area safe, the implication is that you are less liable if you have taken no action at all. Unless of course you created the situation in the first place, in which case you are liable.

The litigious attitude more comes into play when lawyers can go for companies/individuals with money. Another kind of related anecdote is of a local down-and-out who frequented the Kings Cross area of London. Whenever a film or TV crew pitched up, he'd find himself a convenient cable and 'trip' over it with great song and dance. He'd then make a big thing with the Production or Location Manager stating that he was going sue the production for negligent working practices leading to injury. At first, obviously the poor bods who he'd cornered were petrified of legal action so would pay him off and off he'd go. It wasn't until people put 2 and 2 together to realise that he was a repeat offender of pulling the wool over - he was soon put right!

[Pirate!!]

Ahoy!

And I thought I was doing those who had previously asked about this sort of stuff a favour by posting this thread! Anyway, now that you know there is cover available for those who need it, I reckon this one can be put to bed.

[cedmondson]

As a Finance Director / Chartered Accountant by profession I'm fairly accustomed to reading the fine print and critically evaluating what insurance is actually needed in a commercial environment as well as my own private requirements.

There's one piece of advice everyone should follow before buying extra insurance - namely check the terms of any existing policies you have. 'Public Liability' is a requirement for businesses (incorporated or not) but the equivalent for individuals is 'Personal liability' which is often included in home and contents policies and travel policies. I have a fairly basic annual travel policy with Egg but it covers personal liability up to £2M. You'd be excluded (on my policy terms ) though if you were engaged in any kind of trade.

I also have a home & contents policy (with esure - so again nothing fancy) which includes possessions away from home and again it covers personal liability for unspecified activities away from home. Also, so long as I specify individual items in excess of £1500 ( I have none - yet), I have all risks cover away from home for my camera gear too.
If your home policy doesn't cover this stuff, then you may well be better off getting one that does rather than a special 'photo' insurance package. However I would stress that anyone whose photographic activity is even vaguely commercial would need to check very carefully and (probably) assume that typical domestic polices wouldn't cover them.

As always 'Caveat Emptor'.

[Astaroth]

Unless you are a pro photographer then have...

£15k cover world wide
£5m public liability

Plus £50k of cover for items in my home.... not only does it cover my camera equipment but everything else too for £50 (after cashback).... otherwise known as home insurance.

Camera type insurance is really only applicable if you are doing pro work and then it may well be cheaper/ better getting generic cover than "specialist"

[ginger113]

Originally Posted by Pirate!!

Ahoy!

And I thought I was doing those who had previously asked about this sort of stuff a favour by posting this thread! Anyway, now that you know there is cover available for those who need it, I reckon this one can be put to bed.

Um, yeah, I think I got a bit lost in my own reminiscing! Sorry, been a bit of a knackering week and I had a bit of verbal/keyboard diarrhoea!

Apologies for veering the thread towards irrelevent wanderings!

[cedmondson]

Originally Posted by cedmondson

As a Finance Director / Chartered Accountant by profession I'm fairly accustomed to reading the fine print and critically evaluating what insurance is actually needed in a commercial environment as well as my own private requirements.

Hmmm.. on rereading this looks a bit pompous. Sorry - not intended at all. I just wanted to encourage people to avoid buying what they don't need.