[csa]

That's pretty stink, especially so far as the insurance co is concerned. One would think it's something they should not be able to wriggle out of.

My home policy would not cover my camera equipment, unless it was destroyed in the home (fire, etc.) I have a "rider" on my policy that costs very little to cover my camera equipment at replacement value.

[aslyfox]

My home policy would not cover my camera equipment, unless it was destroyed in the home (fire, etc.) I have a "rider" on my policy that costs very little to cover my camera equipment at replacement value.

but when the equipment is " experienced " as opposed to bought new

how do you convince the insurance coverage to insure for " replacement " value ?

[csa]

Discuss that with your insurance company. Most of my camera equipment is "experienced", and my insurance will pay for what it costs to replace it, regardless of experienced, or not.

[aslyfox]

Discuss that with your insurance company. Most of my camera equipment is "experienced", and my insurance will pay for what it costs to replace it, regardless of experienced, or not.

trust me I have

[DonV]

All insurance companies are not the same; check elsewhere!

[csa]

All insurance companies are not the same; check elsewhere!

Absolutely!

[MarkJerling]

Good to see you posting Carol.
Yes, all insurance companies are different and some seem to make a game out of trying to find a loophole. My insurance company was great when my K-1II came to grief.

Many policies here now work on an "Agreed Value" basis, also for car insurance, and that takes the argument out of what something's worth. Our house & contents and all vehicles are insured "Agreed Value".

[aslyfox]

All insurance companies are not the same; check elsewhere!

thanks

but I will keep mine

the value of the equipment is a small matter for me

[csa]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate it.

[MikeMcE]

My home policy would not cover my camera equipment, unless it was destroyed in the home (fire, etc.) I have a "rider" on my policy that costs very little to cover my camera equipment at replacement value.

Totally true, If you have an agent they will quote you many ways.. I've found the deductible can be an issue, BUT its in the fine print.

[TheBeav]

Weather sealing is marketing trickery. Water and electronics don't mix. I've shot that band of waterway and it is beautiful. I used a Nikon waterproof film camera.

[Serkevan]

Water and electronics don't mix.

Well obviously, that's why you need sealing . It's just that the one in cameras is not designed to be as protective as the one in underwater cameras (which would be quite unfeasible, in all honesty).

[Wheatfield]

To answer a few questions: My homeowners insurance didn't cover the damage. I have not heard from Pentax since my original two conversations. I have reported this incident to the Federal Trade Commission. I have not heard back from the FTC, other an an acknowledgement that my report was received.

You’ve reported to the FTC that a company won’t warrant something they specifically say they won’t warrant?
I expect you won’t hear back from them until they have stopped laughing.
Do keep us posted though.

[tcwilson]

The issue I asked the FTC to look at is the apparent conflict between Pentax marketing and the warranty. Deliberately advertising something that isn't accurate isn't allowed under the law. Granted, there are often gray areas. It is entirely possible the FTC won't see a conflict. But I figured I didn't have anything to lose by submitting a complaint. And, if it leads to more accurate advertising images by Pentax, and perhaps other camera manufacturers, then it would be of benefit to all photographers.

[aslyfox]

the legal issue

Duhaime's Law Dictionary

Puffery Definition:
Advertising which states in general terms that one product or service is superior and which does not otherwise imply any specific representation in regards to the product or service.
Most jurisdictions have consumer protection statutes which prohibit the misrepresentation of a product. In consumer law, if a consumer asks or is given a representation in regards to an item, the information extended must be accurate and not deceptive.

The law has struggled to cut advertisers some slack and have created a distinction between misrepresentations and what the judges have called puffery or often described as mere puffery.

In Castroil v Pennzoil, the United States Court of Appeals adopted these words:

"Puffery is an exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language. Such sales talk, or puffing, as it is commonly called, is considered to be offered and understood as an expression of the seller's opinion only, which is to be discounted as such by the buyer.The puffing rule amounts to a seller's privilege to lie his head off, so long as he says nothing specific.

"Puffery is distinguishable from misdescriptions or false representations of specific characteristics of a product. As such, it is not actionable....

"[P]erformance claim which can be comparatively rated is not puffery. Claims concerning specific product attributes are not puffery. Claims subject to measurement are not puffery."

In Cook Perkiss v Northern Collection, the same court (9th Circuit) held:

"[W]e have recognized puffery in advertising to be claims which are either vague or highly subjective. The common theme that seems to run through cases considering puffery in a variety of contexts is that consumer reliance will be induced by specific rather than general assertions. Advertising which merely states in general terms that one product is superior is not actionable. However, misdescriptions of specific or absolute characteristics of a product are actionable."

The court went on to give the example on an lighting ad which stated that the lamps were "far brighter than any lamp ever before offered for home movies": that was puffery. But it was not puffery when the representations turned specific as to performance as in: "35,000 candle power and 10-hour life".

Puffery Definition