Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gungadan
It's fair enough if you don't want to name them but I don't really understand why. It's not as if you're accusing them of anything other than (possibly) being a bit expensive.
|
Possibly..?
My car costs about 1.25 pence per pound to insure.. My camera equipment, it seems, about 6p per pound.. I cannot accept that the risk is 5 times greater.. OK, car insurance is a competetive market.. I strongly suspect that photo insurance is not.. But is it 5 times more risky..?
There is not a lot of choice in the market and I strongly suspect that these people are cashing in on the market..
It's soemting akin to the stupid situation we got into with car insurance some years ago..
Jase, I understand the insurance market, basically, and how liability is shared across the premiums.. far enough with something like car insurance, where there are many many people covering the risk, but I don't accept that is appropriate for something more specialised.. After all, that's the job of an underwriter, to asses the risk.. This is clearly not happening as the company concerned do not make any assesment of claims history.. They should, in fact, do more to reward those with a good claims history..
I hauled loads of gear 50,000 miles (twice around the world) on 50 odd flights last year without incident or claim.. my reward, a 63% premium increase for the same risk..
Rubbish.. That's not acceptable..
No, the underwriters are having a laugh, I feel, and I suspect that another few hundred quid of my earnings will, ultimately, have to go to the leaches..
By the way.. Home insurance will not cover you properly, in my opinion, if it's revealed that your working for some sort of reward, especially if you are trackside.. You'd be pushing your luck with travel policies as well.. Try explaining why you, your 500mm and D2X got ran over by a fire truck racing around the track access road at Paul Ricard or someplace..