Let’s not kid ourselves, when it comes to health insurance, freelance photographers are in an unfortunate situation. Despite working long hours like everyone else and managing their own business, freelance photographers don’t get the same group rates that regular employees do. There is no question that buying insurance as an individual is more expensive.
If you are a freelance photographer looking for a solution to this problem, look no further. The Affordable Care Act has put a number of measures in place to make things easier on freelancing individuals such as yourself. Read more…
According to a recent analysis of its 2012 wedding insurance claims, Travelers Insurance cites the photographer as the most common cause of wedding day mishaps. In its breakdown of the numbers, 24 percent of all wedding issues (the largest chunk) were vendor-related, and 58 percent of all the claims filed under that category involved photos or video. Read more…
Depending on your subject matter, it can be a very good idea to take out a damage waiver when renting camera equipment. Wildlife photographer Andrew Kane learned this recently after renting gear from LensRentals for a shoot in Yellowstone. Here’s his account of how the borrowed equipment ended up broken:
I recently rented a D4, Wimberly head, and 600VR from you, and the day before yesterday, I had a little bit of an accident. I was photographing a coyote here in Yellowstone and I followed it into the woods about 300yds away from the road. As I am taking pictures of the coyote, I heard twigs breaking behind me, and as I turned around I saw it was a grizzly bear. I picked up the tripod with the D4 and 600 on it and slowly started to back away. The bear got closer and closer as I tried to back up. When the bear got to within 20 yds. of me, I bumped into a brush pile that I could not lift the tripod over, so I had no choice but to leave the gear and continue away from the bear.
Last week we reported on how photographers and a magazine are being sued for $300,000 for allegedly breaking a 2,630-year-old statue while photographing it for an assignment. While many people, including us, pointed to it as an example of why carrying liability insurance is a good idea for photographers, a more appropriate question is: does a typical insurance plan even cover something like that? David Walker over at PDN writes that it doesn’t:
And as it turns out, standard liability insurance typically carried by photographers would NOT cover the accidental dropping of, say, a $300,000 Nok figurine on the set. That’s because liability insurance policies typically exclude damage claims “for property of others in the care, custody or control of the insured,” says Scott Taylor of Taylor & Taylor Associates
[...] The Nok figurine, or any other prop or object being photographed as part of the shoot, would almost certainly fall under one of those exclusions. Architectural photographer Peter Aaron says he found out about those exclusions after an assignment some years ago where an assistant mishandled an architect’s model of a skyscraper. “It pancaked,” Aaron says. The architect demanded $5,000 in compensation. Aaron turned to his insurance company. “They said that’s not something we cover,” Aaron says. He had to pay out of pocket (though he negotiated a lower settlement).
So how can you protect yourself against damage to extremely valuable items? You can either purchase third-party property insurance in addition to your liability insurance, or just have the owners move their own valuables.
What If You Break a $300,000 Figurine While on Assignment? [PDN]
Image credit: insurance by Alan Cleaver
Here’s a good example of why photographers should think about carrying liability insurance: Art + Auction magazine is being sued for $300,000 by art collector Corice Amran after its photographers accidentally knocked over a 2,630-year-old Nigerian Nok statue. The magazine was photographing the terracotta statue — the oldest known figurative sculpture south of the Sahara — at Amran’s house in May 2011 when the photographers decided to pick it up and move it to the opposite side of the room. According to the lawsuit,
During the photographers’ move of the Nok figure, the Nok figure fell onto the floor and was smashed into a myriad of pieces, cannot be restored and is a total loss. Defendant, through the photographers, acted negligently and without the due care necessary with respect to the Nok figure, particularly in light of its rarity, value and fragility. As the result of defendant’s negligence, the 2,630-year-old Nok figure owned by plaintiff was destroyed.
At least it was an inanimate statue and not a baby…
(via Courthouse News via Boing Boing)