In a recent post, I glossed over liability insurance. Well here’s a good example of why a photographer might need it. A photographer taking pictures of a client’s art work allegedly moved an ancient statue to take advantage of the light. It seems the statue was placed on uneven wood floor and toppled over. The piece was valued at $300,000 and the owner is suing. In this case the photographer was working for an art magazine which says they have no liability.
You can read more on the story HERE.
Now imagine you are a wedding photographer and at the reception you accidentally knock over a priceless piece of art or break a piece of furniture. Do you have thousands or tens-of-thousands of dollars to pay for it? I know some reception halls require photographers to carry liability insurance. Not all photographers need it; but if you shoot on location (weddings, events, corporate settings, commercial clients, etc.) then it’s something worth looking into.