In article <48dugm$qr2@fg1.plk.af.mil>, Pete_Pollock@ple.af.mil says...
>This whole business of insurance for photo equipment is a
>pain in the neck. (text about homeowner's ins. deleted)
>I've yet to find an insurance company that will offer a policy
>for photo gear. (..)

I found most companies are very happy to write a camera rider on
homeowner's or renter's insurance, but getting a policy that does
much in case of loss is the problem. Non-professional policies
often pay on depreciated values, but charge according to new value
(neat trick, especially considering how little you may collect after
a very few years of use of the equipment - and arguements that the
used gear has actually appreciated [as Nikon often does] don't fit
the insurance company formulas). For more money (sometimes about
$500/year minimum [!]), you can get a replacement cost policy, but
if you read the fine print, you find that you cannot collect the full amount unless you actually replace the item, and do it within a
year(!). (Great, huh, if you have a major loss and have to pay for
the equipment before you can be reimbursed fully.) Or, you may have
"replacement cost", but you may find yourself as co-insurer - another
ploy to insure only partial payment. Then there is the deductable.
If you make it large enough, the insurance may be affordable, but
you lose much of the protection for the most likely loss: the one
camera and a lens or two that most of us may carry at any given time.
Self insurance may make sense for the thrifty. Let's see.....
$(?) per year X (?) years = Lotsa Bucks Saved (IF there is no
loss for a lotta years...)
I will end my diatribe by saying that I have heard that Aetna, and
maybe some others pay fairly. If there isn't a FAQ on this, it would
be nice to have user's experiences with different insurance companies.
Hope this helps.