PPA Wedding Insurance

elsaspet · Dec 6, 2005

My good friend Pete (ChristiePhoto) inquired as to why I joined the PPA as I had absolutely no intention of entering contests or taking classes.
I told him that I had joined for the Wedding Insurance in case I was ever sued. (Not that I plan on screwing up, but there are sue-crazy nuts in every service related business). You have to join as Active Proffessional with Malpractice Insurance. Not cheap at over $300 bucks, but definately worth it if your equiptments fails or your car breaks down on the way to the wedding. Pete asked that I post that here, as there are probably a lot of people who are unaware of it.
Besides that, there are tons of other useful benefits for photogs, such as low cost medical and disablility, lost intrest credit cards and all kinds of other stuff. www.ppa.com .
Hope that helps!
Cindy

thebeginning · Dec 6, 2005

i've actually looked into that quite a bit. i thought of eventually joining as an "aspiring photographer", because it's a bit more accurate and is cheaper. Do you know of any disadvantages of joining as an aspiring photographer (with malpractice protection)?

thanks for posting this :thumbsup:

Christie Photo · Dec 7, 2005

Thanks for strarting this, Cindy!

Can you tell a bit more about the malpractice insurance? YEARS ago, the organization offered legal representation is these cases, but never used the word "insurance." I do, of course, have business insurance protecting me from any law suits regarding injury claims both in my studio and on location. My wedding contract limits my liability in the event I fail to perform. I wonder now if that phrase is enough.

I know you'd really enjoy your state convention. Don't dismiss it entirely. You'd meet a lot of really nice folks (some pompus asses too), and see a bunch of industry vendors and their wares. Kinda like TPF.

-Pete

elsaspet · Dec 7, 2005

thebeginning said:
i've actually looked into that quite a bit. i thought of eventually joining as an "aspiring photographer", because it's a bit more accurate and is cheaper. Do you know of any disadvantages of joining as an aspiring photographer (with malpractice protection)?

thanks for posting this :thumbsup:

From what I understand it, the difference is the amount of coverage should you need to use the insurance.

elsaspet · Dec 7, 2005

They still offer representation, but as I understand it the malpractice insurance kicks into effect if you lose the case.
Most likely, even with a good lawyer, if you car breaks down on the way to a wedding, and you leave the couple with no picts of their big day, the judge is going to rule in the couple's favor. That is understandable, as it's a one time shoot. The insurance would pay all or most of the award, depending on the judgement.
This is my only source of income now, and I am set up under a sole proprietorship. If I didn't have this, and was sued and lost, it would not only cripple my business, but probably put me into bankrupcy personally. That why I think this particular membership is sooooo important.

Christie Photo · Dec 7, 2005

So, ya think the disclaimer may not be strong enough? It reads:
"The studio takes utmost care with respect to the exposure, development, and delivery of photographs. However, in the event the studio fails to comply with the terms of this contract, the studio's liability is limited to refund of deposits."

In fact, when I review this with my clients, I "joke" that, "if the labs screws up, you can't have my house."

I've always felt "safe" with this clause. Any thoughts?

elsaspet · Dec 7, 2005

Yes, I have the same thing in my contract, however, let's look at it this way........
Say my car throws a rod on the way to the wedding. I'm in the middle of nowhere but still continue to make efforts to get to the wedding. I walk for a while, make it into town, catch a cab, but make it to the wedding 2 hours late missing the ceremony entirely.
I've tried my upmost, but I'd still lose the case because I had failed to maintain my car WHICH IS within my control.
Or another senerio-I'm at the wedding on time, take all my pics, and get home to find that I have one corrupt card and am missing the all important ceremony completely. (I shoot two cameras during the ceremony so this doesn't happen, but say in this instance I only have one camera). I would lose the case again for not having taken precautions against this by not having a proper backup. I know a lot of wedding photogs just starting out who don't have two and three cameras.
We can go on and on about how things can go wrong. Hard drive crashes, hospitization, etc. Most of us take precautions against these things. But even with precautions in place, things can still go terribly wrong.
Edited to add...True Story I saw on FM about a year ago:
Guy goes to a wedding with two cameras and a craploaded of lenses and cards. During the reception, he switches over to his wide angle and puts his other camera in his bag which he leaves by the DJ. Shoots away and comes back to change a card only to find that his entire equipment bag was stolen. (As well as all the cards he'd already shot). Not only does this guy lose all his equipment exept for the camera on his neck, he later gets sued too.

Alison · Dec 7, 2005

Wow, thank you for the great information! This is something I'll look into further. Like Pete, I have wording on my contract that states the extent of my liability is the amount paid, but I have a sense that might not be enough.

danalec99 · Dec 7, 2005

Insurance is a must. I too have heard a lot of bad stories. I have to start research on this soon. I've heard 'State Farm' is a good company too.

Cindy, why don't you register as a limited liability company?

elsaspet · Dec 7, 2005

danalec99 said:
Insurance is a must. I too have heard a lot of bad stories. I have to start research on this soon. I've heard 'State Farm' is a good company too.

Cindy, why don't you register as a limited liability company?

I didn't know how to do all that. My ex had a limited partnership and I remember it as being a big todo.

danalec99 · Dec 7, 2005

It should be a straight forward job, as per my accountant. Here is a link from a random search to its pros and cons

...Your personal assets are separate from the business' assets, and therefore safe,...

Alison, I just noticed the 'Inc.' part of Stalley Photography.
What do you think are the benefits over an LLC? I heard Corporations had to deal with more paper work and double taxes.

elsaspet · Dec 7, 2005

danalec99 said:
It should be a straight forward job, as per my accountant. Here is a link from a random search to its pros and cons
Alison, I just noticed the 'Inc.' part of Stalley Photography.
What do you think are the benefits over an LLC? I heard Corporations had to deal with more paper work and double taxes.

Thanks for the link, Dan. I'll go check it out.:thumbup:

Alison · Dec 7, 2005

I'm an S-Corp, it avoids that double taxation issue :thumbsup: We went that route because of advice from another photographer and our accountant. However, my current accountant recommends the LLC but said staying as an S-corp is fine as well.

The paperwork isn't too bad, and for me it's worth the piece of mind that my business and personal assets are not tied together.

danalec99 · Dec 7, 2005

Thanks Alison. I was thinking of registering framesmedia as an LLC in Jan 06.
I'll have to do more research now!

elsaspet · Dec 7, 2005

:-( I guess I'll have to call my accountant too. It's obvious after the link Dan sent me that I'm just asking for trouble as a sole proprietor. The easiest way is never the best. (drats!)