Concerning flood insurance for our u/w photo gear...how much do you recommend I insure for? The full amount...for everything?

But hang on a minute...my question may not be that simple. Clearly if the camera is exposed to water it is probably a total loss but what about the housing. Only the electronics would need to be replaced and that should be far less expensive that the complete replacement cost of the housing. What about lenses? If they are flooded can they be taken apart, dried, lubed, and re-assembled? Ports would seem to need no repair at all; and what about strobes?

How much do you all ensure for? About how much are you paying for coverage? I am leaning towards the DAN H2O policy as it settles claims with cash rather than replaced equipment. Any body think I am making a wrong decision here?

Thanks,

On my DEPP policy, I only insure electronics against flood, and everything else against theft or other damage. For example, I insure my bulkheads against flood, but my not my housing. Much more economical than insuring the entire package against flood.

I do insure strobes against flood, but I've found that if you get water into them, it only involves the battery compartment, and maybe the sync socket. Nonetheless, even a minor repair can cost some $, so I keep them listed.

I look at it this way:

What if I or my buddy (also girlfriend) get in a dive emergency and have to ditch the housing as well as the weights?

If you want peace of mind for that, then insure the whole thing. I know people who have had to ditch their whole setup. Honestly, it's not that much more per year, maybe thirty bux???

Also, I use DAN insurance and they were GREAT when I flooded a camera.

Cheers
James

I'm with James. I don't look at it as insuring just against a flood, but against total loss, which is what's nice about the DAN policy. I'm actually more worried about theft, someone dropping a tank on it, the airlines with their "limited liability" losing it, etc. Considering a housed dSLR is somewhere north of $5000, the extra cost on the insurance is minimal.

I think he is referring to the fact that with DEPP, you have to purchase flood insurance as a seperate attachment to the other insurance and pay additional premium based on a percentage of the value.

I would like to mention that the traditional view of insurance is to protect you from losses you cannot afford to absorb. In that context, the amount of insurance that is enough is dependent on your personal circumstances. If you are a pro, this may be a business issue. If you are not, then it's possible that no insurance is required. Nothing wrong with being self-insured.

When you find yourself wanting more insurance than you actually need, you have to ask yourself if the luxury of extra insurance is worth the incremental cost. I think that's where most people find themselves.

I'm not sure that DEPP covers you against ditching your camera? Anyone know this for certain?

And yes - with my policy there is a flood premium that is much higher to protect items against water damage. This is why I only cover floodables against flood!