Taking an expensive camera... insurance?

[sandypier]

Hi all,

We will be embarking on our first rail trip in December and I'm very excited! We'll be on Coast Starlight.

My question is, I have a very expensive camera to the tune of about $5000. We will be traveling coach (no sleeper).

Obviously I will be keeping it on my person at all times (which will be a pain because it's heavy but a necessary evil!), but I'm still a bit paranoid particularly while I am sleeping (that is, if I am able to )

The camera is not covered by insurance by any other means (we rent and don't have renter's insurance or property insurance).

Is there a form of travel insurance that I can purchase to protect the camera from theft? I have googled my pretty little brains out and can't find anything and figured I would ask here before I bother making phone calls

Not bringing the camera is not an option.

Any other tips for keeping it safe onboard much appreciated!

Thank you!

 

[Ryan]

Rather than worry about some camera specific insurance, just get renters insurance. It's dirt cheap, and quite frankly it's foolish to not have it.

 

[me_little_me]

Rather than worry about some camera specific insurance, just get renters insurance. It's dirt cheap, and quite frankly it's foolish to not have it.

I'll second that. I can understand if you are hungry, it is a choice of food or insurance but with a $5000 camera, you can afford renter's insurance. Best thing about renter's insurance is that it covers all those things homeowner's insurance does not unless you pay extra.

<editorial on>

If the government wants to require people to buy health insurance, then they should also require earthquake insurance in places like California and flood insurance for those on the coast. And I believe in all of them.

<editorial off>

 

[IowaGirl]

Ditto to what Ryan said - Renter's Insurance is cheap - even if you don't think you have much to insure. In the event of theft or fire - you would have nothing at all!

Double check with the insurance agent. I have my camera insured on a separate "personal articles" policy. It is replacement value. You will definitely want REPLACEMENT value - that way if something happens - you will have the right coverage to replace it. My camera is covered no matter what - if I drop it, lose it, it is stolen, or damaged.

 

[Henry Kisor]

To these sensible answers I'd just add that it's always a good idea to record all serial numbers on the equipment in case of theft. I do that with all my lenses and bodies and other costly items. Sometimes that will help recover stolen items. Also it and a copy of the rental agreement (which may or may not include serial numbers) will usually satisfy the insurance company of your loss.

 

[Texan Eagle]

Somewhat naive question- does renter's insurance by default cover my camera getting stolen on a train trip? I mean, I know it covers all thefts, damage and loss that happens at the property for which I have the renter's insurance (in my case, my rented apartment in Dallas), but if my camera gets stolen onboard Coast Starlight in California, will my renter's insurance cover that too? Is this normal, or are you guys suggesting claiming the theft happened from rented apartment (not on the train) while claiming compensation from insurance?

 

[Ryan]

It depends on the particulars of your policy but most of the time, yes. The insurance covers all of your property, regardless of where that property was when the loss occurred (with some limitations that again vary from policy to policy).

Here's a pretty decent article at a photo-related site that provides some more detail:

http://photo.net/learn/insurance

 

[zephyr17]

Somewhat naive question- does renter's insurance by default cover my camera getting stolen on a train trip? I mean, I know it covers all thefts, damage and loss that happens at the property for which I have the renter's insurance (in my case, my rented apartment in Dallas), but if my camera gets stolen onboard Coast Starlight in California, will my renter's insurance cover that too? Is this normal, or are you guys suggesting claiming the theft happened from rented apartment (not on the train) while claiming compensation from insurance?

Typically renter's insurance covers theft or loss away from the insured premesis up to 10% of the policy limits, with normal dedictibles applying. Check your own policy to be sure of your specific coverage.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

In my experience there is no such thing as "default insurance" in most states. Every insurance agency is free to cover whatever they want however they want whenever they want. Which I believe is why no private company still offers flood insurance but is quick to claim anything that got wet was caused by a flood and is thus disqualified. That being said I still don't understand how the OP ended up with a $5,000 camera but can't spare $10 a month worth of rather cheap and simple renters insurance to protect it. I've never bothered with trip insurance as the terms never looked like a good deal to me. I guess if I was traveling through the deepest darkest reaches of tribal war zones I might buy it, but even then it would probably be disqualified by "acts of god, war, civil unrest, and/or rain on a Tuesday" and on and on.

 

[sandypier]

Somewhat naive question- does renter's insurance by default cover my camera getting stolen on a train trip? I mean, I know it covers all thefts, damage and loss that happens at the property for which I have the renter's insurance (in my case, my rented apartment in Dallas), but if my camera gets stolen onboard Coast Starlight in California, will my renter's insurance cover that too? Is this normal, or are you guys suggesting claiming the theft happened from rented apartment (not on the train) while claiming compensation from insurance?

Typically renter's insurance covers theft or loss away from the insured premesis up to 10% of the policy limits, with normal dedictibles applying. Check your own policy to be sure of your specific coverage.

I actually looked into getting renter's insurance again temporarily (we can't afford it regularly again until april when my husband finishes school - right now we are rolling change for milk most months) but this is where I got stuck - in order to cover my $5000 camera I would need to purchase $50,000 of renters coverage, which was quoted at around $40/mo for my area. Which is why I asked about specific travel insurance - we don't need $50,000 worth of coverage regularly, nor can we afford $40 a month right now, and getting it for a month and then canceling it seems dishonest/a lot of trouble if I can just buy travel insurance instead.

Trust me, I know the value of renter's insurance (we survived hurricane Ivan) - we have always had a policy since then but since my husband started school it's been too tight on my starving artist salary. Once he finishes in april and is able to work full time again it'll be one of the first monthly expenses to come back!

 

[sandypier]

In my experience there is no such thing as "default insurance" in most states. Every insurance agency is free to cover whatever they want however they want whenever they want. Which I believe is why no private company still offers flood insurance but is quick to claim anything that got wet was caused by a flood and is thus disqualified. That being said I still don't understand how the OP ended up with a $5,000 camera but can't spare $10 a month worth of rather cheap and simple renters insurance to protect it. I've never bothered with trip insurance as the terms never looked like a good deal to me. I guess if I was traveling through the deepest darkest reaches of tribal war zones I might buy it, but even then it would probably be disqualified by "acts of god, war, civil unrest, and/or rain on a Tuesday" and on and on.

Wow, judgmental much?

I got the camera through receiving $7000 inheritance money several years ago. I used it wisely to invest in photography equipment that has provided me an income these past years far above and beyond the $7000. That said it's not a great income and my husband is in school right now in a very intensive program so can only work part time. We also have a daughter so yeah, times are tough.

We wouldn't even be going on this trip except it's to see my husband's father who has terminal cancer and wants one more Christmas with his family all together - and my mom took pity on us and paid for the trip for us.

But thanks for that Sometimes there is more to the story than meets the eye.

 

[Ryan]

I'd say that's a case of seriously misaligned priorities, then. Sell the D3, buy a D700 and make pictures that are just as nice.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I know that every Stae has different Insurance laws and policies, (damn lawyers! :lol: ), but if you have car insurance in most states, renters insurance is like $10 a month and you also get a discount on your other policies with the company (ie State Farm seems to do this well!) Im surprised that they want so much for it where you live! (is it California??? :lol: ) Texas has a reputation (well deserved) for having high insurance rates and my $60,000 worth of coverage on contents(including liability ) is only $10 a month!

If you are unable to get insurance, I wouldnt risk a $5,000 Anything on a trip, leave it @ home or somehwere else safe, the professional thiefs home in on stuff like this like a lazer!Hope yall have a great Christmas with the family, lots of us have experienced things like this, its great that yall are able to go, especially on the Starlight!

 

[sandypier]

I'd say that's a case of seriously misaligned priorities, then. Sell the D3, buy a D700 and make pictures that are just as nice.

The $5000 covers the camera + lenses. The camera itself is a classic 5D, the lowest quality I can reasonably use in my specific area of photography which requires low light with no flash. The lenses are all for specific purpose which I need. I have already sold what I reasonably can and still be able to provide a quality product to my customers - if I sold any more I would not be able to provide the level of quality that I advertise in my portfolio.

Holy crap, my first post in this forum and my finances are being ripped apart over a silly question about travel insurance. Way to be welcoming. I think I'll just call the insurance companies, thanks everyone for your "help".

 

[sandypier]

I can't leave it at home because I have booked work in Portland.

 

[Ryan]

Good luck with that, then. You're likely to find that any insurance that meets your needs is out of your reach. Especially since you're using the equipment for professional use. Go read the link I posted earlier.

Personally, I think that it's silly to worry about losing the camera. Keep track of it and you'll be fine. It isn't like someone is going to take it out of your hands while you're sleeping, you're going to be in a coach with 50 other people.

 

[Hanno]

I'd say that's a case of seriously misaligned priorities, then. Sell the D3, buy a D700 and make pictures that are just as nice.

The $5000 covers the camera + lenses. The camera itself is a classic 5D, the lowest quality I can reasonably use in my specific area of photography which requires low light with no flash. The lenses are all for specific purpose which I need. I have already sold what I reasonably can and still be able to provide a quality product to my customers - if I sold any more I would not be able to provide the level of quality that I advertise in my portfolio.

Holy crap, my first post in this forum and my finances are being ripped apart over a silly question about travel insurance. Way to be welcoming. I think I'll just call the insurance companies, thanks everyone for your "help".

It does seem as though some comments did get off target. Sorry about that. I too have expensive camera equipment and travel by train often. IMHO if you excercise caution and good judgement you should be fine. One thing I do is loop my belt through the camera strap when I am napping. I also don't make a showy display of my camera and lenses. Keep a low profile, hide what you can and have a good trip!

 

[Ryan]

That's a good point as well - if you need the camera for work at the other end of the line, lock it up and leave it in your bag on the train. Must less likely to wander off if nobody knows you have it.

 

[amamba]

Like the others, I would highly suggest insuring the camera. If you are using the camera for business purposes, you may even be able to deduct the cost of the insurance on your taxes. Good luck.

My renter's insurance is something like $200/year for more than $50,000 in property. I also have a $1 million umbrella (PELP) policy that is only $100/year. That covers liability, though.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Sometimes there is more to the story than meets the eye.

While I can appreciate that there is often more to the story than meets the eye I would hope you can understand that all we have to go on is what you write to us. The combination of a very expensive must-have camera stored in coach combined with "paranoid" concerns for its safety and no interest in securing renter's insurance didn't leave many options for suggestions. I guess I could have recommended the one solution you seemed interested in, but I've never found a trip insurance policy that seemed like a good deal to me. Nor am I aware of travelers policies that are focused on replacing unusually expensive cameras while in transit. Mostly they seem to deal with refunding travel related expenses and getting you home when there's some sort of mild disruption.

 

[manowell]

I'd say that's a case of seriously misaligned priorities, then. Sell the D3, buy a D700 and make pictures that are just as nice.

The $5000 covers the camera + lenses. The camera itself is a classic 5D, the lowest quality I can reasonably use in my specific area of photography which requires low light with no flash. The lenses are all for specific purpose which I need. I have already sold what I reasonably can and still be able to provide a quality product to my customers - if I sold any more I would not be able to provide the level of quality that I advertise in my portfolio.

Holy crap, my first post in this forum and my finances are being ripped apart over a silly question about travel insurance. Way to be welcoming. I think I'll just call the insurance companies, thanks everyone for your "help".

Seems like the thread got a little weird, there. Sorry 'bout that.

I generally travel with nicer camera or laptop hardware than many in my surrounding environment, so I try to be a little paranoid about who's watching my gear. I've never had anything disappear from a train (I've only ridden in Germany, though), but have often used a relatively cheap bicycle security cable and padlock to loop through the gear cases and around a seat leg. Sure, they can cut the cases loose, but nobody's going to casually walk off with it and act like they picked it up by accident if questioned. And I always stay near my stuff if we're anyhwere near a stop.

Just checked the Amtrak site for policies on checked baggage, where they note: "Fragile and/or valuable items, including but not limited to electronic equipment *Laptop computers and other handheld devices are allowed onboard; however Amtrak accepts no liability for theft or damage." So as far as they're concerned, they're not liable in any case, checked or carry-on. They do go on to say, though: "Amtrak liability for checked baggage is limited to a maximum of $500 per ticketed passenger. Passengers may declare additional valuation up to $2,500 upon payment of the applicable charge." Checking it and insuring it for the full amount wouldn't cover your pro hardware, though, and might cost more than renter's insurance.

Interstingly enough, to ME at least, you can check firearms in checked baggage but not archery equiment. Huh.

 

[RRUserious]

I'm baffled why an owner of a $5k camera can only afford a coach seat where the camera would be in danger. Perhaps the risk makes the work in a distant city not worth what it pays. Frankly, I'd never take anything on a trip that I couldn't afford to lose. I hear of people taking irreplaceable jewelry on trips, and I have to scratch my head at what appears to be the folly of such a thing. I'd also say that the camera should probably be in safe deposit till it can be insured. You could have a breakin at your home, it could get taken (WOULD get taken) and you'd be out of luck since you carry no insurance. The risk on a trip is only a small part of the overall problem.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

Guys, it is time to back off, the OP asked about travel insurance not the merits or difficulty of regular insurance.

 

[Ryan]

Personally, I thought it'd be irresponsible to not mention the fact that for the same money you can insure all of your possessions rather than let her waste her money on something that provides far less value.

Now that the fact is out that the gear is used for professional use, it's a virtual certainty that the gear will be unable to be insured within the OP's budget.

 

[sandypier]

Thanks for those who have offered up helpful suggestions, even if they weren't suited to my budget/situation (which you couldn't have known) - I appreciate it. I'm not against renter's insurance nor do I resent the suggestion, the reality is that we can't afford to add another monthly bill to our budget (even if it was $10, which it isn't, but nonetheless) - I'm not bothered by the suggestion and frankly I may have to look into a securing a policy again temporarily just for the trip if there is no other option available/financially viable. That is, if I can find one that covers it though my home even though it's equipment used for my business - our last policy (when we did have renters insurance) was a lot more expensive for that reason.

What I take offense to is those of you who have taken it upon yourselves to judge why I have an expensive camera if I can't afford renter's insurance or why I am traveling coach - I didn't ask for your opinions on my personal finances nor do I think they are any of your beeswax. But since you're all just begging for details in hope you can roll your eyes at the silly irresponsible broke chick who spends all her money on unnecessary toys and then skips responsible things like renter's insurance, I'll tell you exactly what my situation is. If for no other reason than to get it off my chest.

My camera equipment is not a big screen TV (for the record, my TV is a humble 19" old fashioned tube, which sits in front of my $20 slip-covered couch). My camera is not a frivolous toy that I purchased irresponsibly nor am I in the habit of doing such things. It is equipment which I use it to feed and shelter my family. Some people depend on a car to get to work and make money for their family - I depend on my camera. And, as a photographer - only in my 4th year of business - I don't make a lot, and we're currently living almost solely on that not-so-great income because my husband is in school and can only work part time. So things are tight. REALLY tight. Rolling change for milk tight, sometimes. We pay our rent, basic bills, buy food and that's it. That's all we have right now, and we're actually OK with that, because the reason for our current situation is my husband's education. It is well worth sacrificing now for the hope of a better life later.

Without the camera, my husband would have to quit school and go back to his crappy sales job and I'd be back at Target giving 75% of my paycheck to the daycare - only making slightly above what we do now but firmly implanted in a life going absolutely nowhere.

But hey - we'd have renter's insurance again! Well now that would make it all better, wouldn't it. We could insure our crappy couch and saggy mattress for as many years as we needed. Smrt.

I bought the camera (camera equipment, I should say, since for $5000 it consists of much more than the body) with an inheritance I received so I could expand my business. And it worked/is working. I went from $50-$100/mo average to making enough to pay the rent and most of the basic bills/household expenses. Each year my profits more than double from the year before - a business providing a luxury that I started in the middle of a recession. So I'd say I'm doing quite well, all things considered, and since I work from home mostly I don't have to hand over most of my money to a daycare provider. I have no intention of hoking off my camera for a few thousand bucks that in California would last all of 2 months before I'd be flat on my *** broke. Now THAT would be a really stupid decision.

This trip we are taking is to Portland to visit my husband's father who is dying of cancer. Despite the sad reason, we're excited about traveling by train because we have never done it before (other than local lines, that is) and I hear the Coast Starlight is very pretty. The two days each way on the train will be the closest thing we've had to a family vacation since our honeymoon almost 9 years ago. In order to even go, though, I lined up jobs in Portland for while we are there because I cannot stop working for very long - just because we're out of state does not mean the rent won't still be due on the 1st of the month and when you are self employed you don't get "vacation days". I can't afford to take a vacation from working, and luckily enough, due to the nature of my business I was able to line up enough jobs up there so I can go to Portland and see Dad too, and not worry that we won't be able to pay the rent when it is inevitably due (at least, not worry more than usual). If I have to leave my camera at home, I have to stay home with it so I can work, and I would like to see my father in law before he passes away.

I asked about travel insurance. That is all. I'm a responsible person and I take care of business when it comes to my finances. If a cut is needed, I make the cut and move on. One of those cuts was our renter's insurance. It was $25 and I live in a gated community with 24/7 onsite security as well as video surveillance in common areas and every hallway. It's small and close-knit and security and everyone else for that matter knows if someone doesn't belong there. There hasn't been a successful break-in with any of my neighbors during the entire time I have lived here (6 years). The city I live in is one of the top 10 lowest crime rates in the whole country. I have good equipment and backup equipment if something breaks. All that said, going without insurance is a temporary measure - we're planning to re-instate our renter's insurance when my husband finishes school in 5 months. I think we'll survive until then, unless of course there is a massive earthquake and we lose everything - in which case, my business is pretty much screwed anyway as I doubt anyone will be booking me for joyful family photos for quite some time.

So I took a well calculated risk.

If you don't have any advice about companies that offer travel/temporary personal property insurance to cover a trip away from home, then I respectfully ask that you please keep your opinions to yourself - since, all due respect - you don't know me, it is none of your business how I spend my money and I didn't ask for your opinion on my overall finances. I am not a dimwit desperately in need of your financial expertise. I've managed to live my life completely debt free and without government assistance which is more than most people can say nowadays. I'm a smart woman and I can figure things out. My only point in posting here at all was to save myself a few phone calls, during which my 5 year old inevitably makes a point to immediately start asking for snacks, water, craft supplies, what color the sky is, how do you spell sky and why is it spelled with a K instead of a C when I'm talking to someone on the phone. I figured maybe someone knew of a policy I could purchase.

The sad thing is I was very much looking forward to being a part of this forum to gain information about Amtrak (since I don't plan to be this dirt poor forever and if I enjoy this trip I will probably consider traveling by train in the future quite often as most of my family is scattered around the continent). Now I feel like I will simply be marked as "that irresponsible chick who somehow has a fancy camera even though she's so broke she can't afford $10", not to mention I'll be afraid to say pretty much anything for fear of being tarred and feathered for things without any just cause for concern.

I'm not feeling very welcomed here at all. I don't even know why I came back to argue about this, it has made me very upset and I can't seem to let it go. The fact that people could judge so harshly based on a single post has put a very bad taste in my mouth about this community and I'm not sure I want to be a part of it anymore.

I sincerely hope this is a one-off and you don't normally treat people with such blatant disrespect and scrutiny based on assumptions you know nothing about. Yes, you can only go based on what is written, but that doesn't give you the right to fill in the blanks as you please to the detriment of someone's character.

In the words of the ultimate brat: "How rude."