Ben Thouard recently drowned much of his equipment, including a 1D4 and 1DX plus 4 L lenses. He is trying to get Canon to help with replacement and has asked for help to popularize his plight on FB (with likes and shares) for some marketing numbers to convince Canon to help him.
While I'm surprised that with nearly 20K of equipment, Ben didn't have any insurance to cover the equipment. Would anyone take that risk? Terrestrial shooters I can understand, but anyone shooting in water constantly, it would seem an oversight. But nonetheless, here's my bit to help a fellow photographer out:
Bad news, all around. But no insurance? That's silly...
For those in the U.S. it is easy: there is DAN. Elsewhere, for non-pro shooters there is your homeowners or tenant insurance. If you make 1 cent a year, they will demand business insurance. I have found coverage starting at $750 /year, with a $1000 deductible. One has to balance one's investment with the amount one has to pay for coverage. In Ben's case, yes, silly. Anyone that belongs to Pro Photographic Associations can access coverage, but most are at the rates I mention. They are also covering office equipment, like computers, and liability for those fees.
I have my dive gear insured with Dive Master Insurance in England as the insure you wherever you live.
I assisted a claim with a losd Suunto D9 and the handling from Dive Master Insurance was hassle free and quick.
The cost of the insurance is rather pricey and approx. 10% of the declared value.
Chris
The insurance companies have to pay out the claims, pay for their administration costs, and make a profit. So, in the long term insurance will always cost more than just replacing the stuff yourself, as long as you have the cash flow to take the hit when it happens. My rule of thumb is that I never insure anything that I have enough money to replace if I lose it. If you have $30,000 worth of gear and it is your livelihood, then for most people insurance would make sense because you might not be able to round up the cash to replace it in the event of a loss, but I'd rather just gamble and pocket the premiums. Of course, if I flood my housing I'll cry...
Ben Thouard recently drowned much of his equipment, including a 1D4 and 1DX plus 4 L lenses. He is trying to get Canon to help with replacement and has asked for help to popularize his plight on FB (with likes and shares) for some marketing numbers to convince Canon to help him.
While I'm surprised that with nearly 20K of equipment, Ben didn't have any insurance to cover the equipment. Would anyone take that risk? Terrestrial shooters I can understand, but anyone shooting in water constantly, it would seem an oversight. But nonetheless, here's my bit to help a fellow photographer out:
I feel for the guy, but before I support him I would like to know how this happened ??
Ben Thouard recently drowned much of his equipment, including a 1D4 and 1DX plus 4 L lenses. He is trying to get Canon to help with replacement and has asked for help to popularize his plight on FB (with likes and shares) for some marketing numbers to convince Canon to help him.
While I'm surprised that with nearly 20K of equipment, Ben didn't have any insurance to cover the equipment. Would anyone take that risk? Terrestrial shooters I can understand, but anyone shooting in water constantly, it would seem an oversight. But nonetheless, here's my bit to help a fellow photographer out:
Are we to deduce that a dry case did not stay dry? Hard to imagine what on the surface would let that much water in any of the dry cases, unless the main O-ring was totally gone.
The insurance companies have to pay out the claims, pay for their administration costs, and make a profit. So, in the long term insurance will always cost more than just replacing the stuff yourself, as long as you have the cash flow to take the hit when it happens. My rule of thumb is that I never insure anything that I have enough money to replace if I lose it. If you have $30,000 worth of gear and it is your livelihood, then for most people insurance would make sense because you might not be able to round up the cash to replace it in the event of a loss, but I'd rather just gamble and pocket the premiums. Of course, if I flood my housing I'll cry...
I think that is true over the entire range of all the insured people in the plan but it clearly is not true for any individual insured person. My insurance rate is something like 5% of the replacement cost of the gear. If I flooded everything and had it replaced and stopped buying insurance I would be way ahead. No claims for more than 20 years and then I break even.
Bill
I think he didn't close it properly and it flooded. He doesn't say so I'm just guessing. I've seen people forgetting to close it properly and driving hard on the boat, the wind flips it open and splash gets in. Crap happens!
I feel for the guy, but I'm trying to understand why Canon should help?
Anyway, if Canon would only increase the inches per hour that their cameras could withstand........
One thing folks should look at is Mack Warranty which provides total flood coverage on new cameras, and must be activated within 30 days of purchase. I purchased it for my D800 which I bought at a local store, but forgot about it on the D800E which I bought mail order from B&H.
I don't have equipment insurance. I calculated a long time ago that I was better off taking the risk. If I lost my D800/housing/and all my strobes, I'd still be better off today. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Diving insurance may be a different matter as it may be difficult to get treatment if you cannot prove you are insured.
I think that is true over the entire range of all the insured people in the plan but it clearly is not true for any individual insured person. My insurance rate is something like 5% of the replacement cost of the gear. If I flooded everything and had it replaced and stopped buying insurance I would be way ahead. No claims for more than 20 years and then I break even.
Bill
True, but would you ever flood everything? You'll flood a housing, body and one lens, or a strobe, but flooding more than that in one claim would be pretty unlikely.
It also depends on how vulnerable the equipment is (how often it's in dangerous postions etc). In Ben's case, he's a surfer photog so he's IN and on the water a lot, and he obviously can afford some nice gear but probably stretched himself a little thin because replacement funds seemingly isn't there.
If one keeps spare lenses and bodies in a dry case on a boat for topside stuff, then I think it's worthwhile insuring it.
The insurance companies have to pay out the claims, pay for their administration costs, and make a profit. So, in the long term insurance will always cost more than just replacing the stuff yourself, as long as you have the cash flow to take the hit when it happens.
So, the observation that risk is amortised over all the customers, and the premium determined by the product of value and risk, has completely passed you by? Your comment is only true if every housing floods, every year...
Sorry, I don't get it and I have no idea why you are posting this on WP?!?!? Odds are that 50% of the folks on this site have flooded their cameras, why are you bringing the plight of this guy to the public? Is he a WP member? Why should we support him? Odds are that many WP members have suffered floods in the last few month, where are their threads? aIf i flood my camera or housing I should make a Facebook complaint and hope that the manufacturer pays for it? On which planet does this make sense?
Nope.. sounds too much like suing McDonalds for spilling coffee on my leg..
He messed up... and he has to deal with it.
Bottom line.. he made a mistake, not Canon! My god.. this is the ultimate example of folks not taking responsibility for their own f-ups..
LOL Now he gets it!
I'm with Mike Weitch, when I saw this I also thought "what's Canon got to do with this?" If the dude has an insurance policy, then the insurance company should pay. Like previously posted, this forum is full of people who have had that awful experience at some point, but I can't recall anyone who would have asked the camera equipment manufacturer to replace gear. If anything, if the case manufacturer (Pelican?) made some claim that the case will never flood, then perhaps one could understand him going to them, but even that is far sought.
I'm with Mike Weitch, when I saw this I also thought "what's Canon got to do with this?" If the dude has an insurance policy, then the insurance company should pay. Like previously posted, this forum is full of people who have had that awful experience at some point, but I can't recall anyone who would have asked the camera equipment manufacturer to replace gear. If anything, if the case manufacturer (Pelican?) made some claim that the case will never flood, then perhaps one could understand him going to them, but even that is far sought.
What if; Ben were to sell "shares" in his professional photography business and used the funds to buy his new equipment? Then, when he had enough money, he could buy back the shares, at the appropriate percentage of the current nett value of his business. The "shareholders" would feel they were making a contribution and, when Ben bought back their stake, they'd make a profit.
Comments?
I agree with Mike Vitch too. The analogous situation would be if I had a fender bender in my BMW (it was an accident, I didn't intentionally hit another car - stuff happens) and then expected BMW to pay for the fix. People need to take responsibility for their actions.
So, let me get this right, a person who is a supposed professional, wants someone else to give him stuff because he wasn't professional enough to insure himself? Unbelievable.
