ISO PM 00 13–CAMERAS FORM AND UNDERWRITING NOTES

(March 2018)

Coverage under a Cameras Form is a type of inland marine coverage focusing on photographic and related equipment.

Purchasing separate coverage facilitates protection at amounts that best reflect its value. Valuation is typically based upon relevant documentation such as a current appraisal or sales receipt. Separate protection is important since severe coverage limitations exist in standard homeowners policies for such property.

Example: Tara’s home was insured under a standard, HO 00 03 policy when burglars broke in. She received a settlement check on the claim she filed, but she was shocked that barely one-tenth of the value of her thousands of dollars in stolen photography equipment was covered.

Inland marine coverage can be purchased using this form or combined with other types of items under a personal articles floater.

ISO PM 00 09–Personal Articles Standard Loss Settlement Form

Hobbies – Hazards and Opportunities.

ANALYSIS OF POLICY

Schedule

The schedule has space to indicate coverage for the following classes of property:

· Unscheduled Property – Blanket Insurance

Note: This is only for low valued items because the maximum payment is $500 per item and cover is based on the actual cash value of the item.

· Scheduled Property

The form has additional space for specifically listing items and to indicate whether the Agreed Value Loss Settlement from the Common Policy Provisions Form applies to that item.

Related Article: Common Policy Provisions

A. Property Covered

Cameras Form coverage applies globally to all items listed as covered property.

1. Scheduled And Unscheduled Cameras

Insures cameras and photographic equipment and accessories listed in the form’s schedule. Protection is against all risks of direct loss. Coverage is indicated by the appearance of an insurance amount and premium next to the property class.

Example: Schutt R. Bug reported a loss to his insurer under his Cameras Form Policy. While camping out, Schutt awoke to find that some animal ran off with his backpack. Schutt found it later, but the foraging animal destroyed it. Besides his food being devoured, several pieces of camera equipment were destroyed. The demolished equipment included:
Klutz-shot, Single Lens Reflex, 35mm	$580	Listed on schedule
Klutz-shot, Wide Angle Lens	$270	Listed on schedule
Cringewell Telephoto Lens	$295	Listed on schedule
Meeksman, Night-vision Binoculars	$410	Not Listed on schedule
Schutt is reimbursed for the camera and lens, but not the binoculars because, unlike the camera and accessories, the binoculars were not listed on his floater schedule.

Of course the form also protects unscheduled property. This is useful to avoid having to list a horde of items that are of minor, individual value.


Example: Kathie Kamera’s Property Schedule is as follows:
VirtuaVue Panoramic Camera	$3,975
Portable VirtuaVue “Skypod”	$390
Compu-Shot 300	$1,473
Cyber-View ver. 2.0	$2,377
Kondascend Condenser/Enlarger	$3,540
BigView Large Format Camera	$4,380
Davelupa King Film Tube Set	$1,750
Total	$17,885
Kathie contacts her agent and says that in addition to the above, she has dozens of camera-related items that she would like coverage for, but it would take forever to describe everything such as lenses, filters, focus cloths, developing equipment, etc. Her agent checks with her insurer. The company tells the agent that, if Kathy will provide a general description of the type of stuff she has, she may cover them on a blanket basis. They evaluation her property and decide to add $4,200 as a blanket limit.

Reference must be made to Paragraph D. I. Loss Settlement in the Common Policy Provisions Form PM 00 01 since that provision includes coverage limitations.

Related Article: Common Policy Provisions

The following items listed are examples of what a camera is but the listing should not be considered a limitation:

(1) Cameras – Analog and Digital, (whether they have motion or still capabilities)

(2) Projection machines – whether movie, multi-media, overhead or slide variety

(3) Portable Sound Equipment – but it must be related to motion or still film processes (operation, projection recording or reproduction)

(4) Other ocular equipment (binoculars, microscopes, telescopes), but only if used with covered photographic equipment

(5) Related photographic and projection media (CDs, Diskettes, DVDs, Film, and Tapes)

(6) Accessories and Equipment, but only such property that is related to photography

B. Property Not Covered

Cameras Form coverage is inapplicable to a number of situations, specifically, protection is denied under the following circumstances:

Ineligible property extends to property highly likely to be used commercially. Therefore, items failing to qualify include aerial and radar cameras (including related accessories and equipment), TV cameras, accessories and equipment (when used commercially), cameras operated by coins/tokens, cameras, equipment and accessories that are owned by dealers or manufacturers.

Example: Harry turns in a claim. One of his cameras, worth $1,780, is stolen. His insurer denies the claim when it discovers that the theft occurred at Phyllis Photog Haven, the dealer that sold Harry the camera. The newly ordered camera (that Harry had already paid for) had just come in. That same day, the business was broken into and Harry’s camera was among the items stolen.

Further, no coverage applies to contraband nor to any property used in illegal activities.

C. Perils Insured Against

The ISO Cameras form Personal Articles Policy normally protects against all forms of direct, physical loss. However, it does not insure against loss or damage caused by:

1. Wear and tear, or gradual deterioration

2. Insects, vermin or inherent vice

Example: Ellen's Cameras Form contains a schedule that includes coverage for her Niklone 35mm camera and telephoto Lens.

Scenario 1: The camera and lens are destroyed during a living room fire that breaks out after a burning log tumbles out of her fireplace. Her policy would respond to this loss.

Scenario 2: The camera and lens are discovered as useless when all of the rubber seals and casing have cracked and crumbled, causing the lens to fall out. The form does not respond to this loss.

Example: A camera becomes useless because the transport (camera component that advances and rewinds film) breaks due to age. The loss is not covered.

Example: A camera is taken along on a picnic. While the insured and family go for a hike, ants invade their picnic supplies and, because some jelly was smeared on the camera, it becomes infested and then hopelessly clogged up with ants. The extensive damage to the camera would not be covered.

Example: A mouse gets to a leather camera casing that is stored in a closet and gnaws a large hole in it. There is no coverage for this loss.

Example: A telephoto lens detaches from a camera as the insured is about to take an outdoor photo. The lens shatters. Upon investigation, coverage is denied because the rubber seal that secured the lens to the camera had aged, hardened and cracked, rendering it unable to be attached to the camera. The damage is not covered.

D. Deductible

This insurance is subject to the policy deductible that appears on the declaration page.

Underwriting

Applications for coverage should be checked for indications of any unusual or unwanted loss exposures. It is important to ask the right questions about the cameras and equipment. Of course, the extent of additional information pursued should be related to the type and extent of the property to be covered. Items to consider are:

How is the equipment used?
What type of equipment exists?
What is the value of the equipment?
What is the extent of the equipment?
What is the insured’s or applicant’s loss history?

How is the equipment used?

Normal personal use is expected and desired.

Example: The underwriting assistant with Incredible Inland Mariners Agency sends several camera insurance submissions to the underwriter:
- application one, includes a person who lists tornado-chasing photographer as a hobby

- application two mentions a note that the potential insured lost a camera due to it being broken by a body guard when she was taking pictures of a celebrity she stalked

- application three advises that the applicant states that he often uses his equipment as an amateur news-hounds, seeing photos of newsworthy events, especially first-responder events.

A much more common concern is whether the use is personal or recreational or professional. Not only is professional use accompanied by a greater equipment loss exposure (typically more equipment with higher value) it also introduces a separate, significant liability exposure.

What type of equipment exists?

Again, equipment that is used for regular purpose is desired. You may wish to avoid persons who own equipment that may represent unusual use or exposure.

Example: Marnie receives an application on a Jayne Jonz for camera insurance. Her application states that photography is a hobby. However, the schedule includes several thousand dollars worth of equipment that is specially made for nighttime use. Marnie sends an email to the agency that sent the application, asking for details on the equipment’s use. The agency responds a couple of days later that Jayne is a part-time private investigator and the equipment is for surveillance. Marnie rejects the application.

What is the value of the equipment?

A person who owns many thousands of dollars of equipment that is new and state-of-the-art may be a warning flag. It may indicate a professional photographer who needs to buy commercial insurance. The fact that his or her application shows some other full-time job is no reason to assume that a professional exposure doesn’t exist. A part-time or free-lance professional photographer should not be written under a personal camera floater policy.

What is the extent of the equipment?

This is also a good indicator of the exposure you’re being asked to write. An unusually high amount of processing equipment and materials could indicate that you’re dealing with a professional. Even if he or she is an amateur, you should determine whether you are comfortable with the insured’s set up. Is there a separate darkroom? Where is it located? Are processing chemicals stored safely? Does the hobbyist safely operate his equipment? It is very important to ask enough questions to determine your true exposure.

Example: Let us look at one of these lists from a different perspective:
List A	List B
35 mm camera	35 mm camera
Camera Bag	Condenser/Enlarger
Rangefinder	Wide Angle Lens
Diffuser	Film Magazine
Again, just looking at the two lists, you may not notice a difference. You may think it is safe to assume that the property shown under List B should be just as eligible for camera floater coverage as the List A property. However, you discover that, while the List A property averages about two years in age, the List B property has an average age of 30 years, consisting of vintage and even classic equipment. The owner of List A is a hobby photographer while the List B owner is an antique collector. The List B property should be insured elsewhere.

What is the insured’s or applicant’s loss history?

Any loss information should be fully developed, especially details that might provide underwriting insight on the insured’s camera hobby. Two camera equipment owners may have experienced two theft claims in the last two years. There’s a difference between owner A, who still keeps much of his equipment in full display in his home and garage, and owner B, who installs a central alarm system and keeps all of his equipment in a room dedicated to his hobby. Loss details could also reveal other concerns.

Example: June Silvershyne applies for a cameras form to cover roughly $5,000 worth of camera and video equipment. June’s coverage used to be handled by a scheduled property endorsement attached to her homeowners policy. Three months earlier, June submitted a theft loss of a mirrorless camera and the loss was settled for $3,000. You notice that a brand new camera, which replaced the stolen camera, has a value of less than $1,000. You question June about the loss and discover that her insurer paid more than $2,000 to have hundreds of wedding pictures converted and edited into a video. Why? June’s stolen camera contained the only copy of a wedding and reception she was paid to record. The bride and groom sued to recover the costs of “creating” a wedding video.

Note: The additional $2,000 was paid under June’s HO liability insurance. The insurer paid after admitting that its policy did not specifically exclude the activity, but the insurer also refused to cover her cameras at her HO renewal.

Related Article: Wedding Insurance Coverage Analysis

List A	List B
35 mm camera	Pentium PC
Condenser/Enlarger	Optical Scanner
Wide Angle Lens	Laser Copier/Printer
Hot Shoe Flash	Data Cartridges