How do I protect myself and my assets (Insurance, LLC ??)

[julie_sweeney]

<p>I am going to be working as a second shooter for a wedding photographer. I have my own "company" in which I shoot portraits. When working as a second shooter, do I need insurance? Or more importantly, how do I protect my personal assets. For example, what if the bride doesn't like the images I shoot and goes after the main photographer, then the main photographer goes after me. How do I make sure that I am protected and so is my "house, car, etc". <br>

Would I need to make my business an LLC for the most protection? <br>

Thank you!</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>insurance is good for accidents....</p>

<p>as for brides coming after you, that'll depend on the contract that you sign with the primary photographer.</p>

<p>LLC is in case you really get sued...that'll protect your personal assets.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>My guess is you are in the USA.<br>

My next guess is that it will depend upon HOW you are employed as a second shooter. i.e. are YOU employed or is YOUR COMPANY employed, to second shoot.<br>

Mind, these are only guesses on my part.<br>

More details of the exact circumsatnce would make it easier for those with knowledge to make a refined comment.<br>

WW</p>

 

[julie_sweeney]

<p>Hello - I am in the USA. I would be employed to second shoot (not my company). I am going to second shoot with a photographer who has a well established business. She is the only photographer in her business. My services are for when a bride wants a second shooter. I shoot, and provide the main photographer with the images. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I can speak only for the UK, but here you wouild be crazy to undertake any professional work without public liability insurance (covers people tripping over your tripod, etc.) and professional indemnity insurance (covers you against claims by clients due to your incompetence or, more likely, failure to deliver pictures due to equipment failure, processing lab foul-ups, etc.). Insurance for your equipment against theft or damage is of course not mandatory but very advisable, particularly in situations (like weddings) with a lot of people who do not know one another and are mostly carrying camera bags. Cheeky thieves who dress to fit in can walk away with equipment in plain sight unchallenged. As an employed person, you shoudl be covered by your employer, but don't assume this without checking!</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>You, as the second shooter, are a temporary employee of the primary photographer hired to do the wedding. If your temporary employer has no insurance, then you have no insurance.</p>

<p><strong>Best bet is to see a lawyer for a simple contract</strong>: that for x-number of hours (or one day) -- you are a temporary employee of the primary photographer. If that is not good with the hired photographer -- you may turn down the second-shooter opportunity, if you wish.</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>You might want to consider the wisdom of casual employment without a clear contract. You'd especially want to be clear on if you are an employee or a conrtactor. This can have ramifications as to copyright ownership (for both of you), possible tax and other legal liabilities, etc. The contract should cover those kinds of concerns. <br>

A lawyer can assist you with determining the better ways to protect your assets but proper insurance coverage should keep you from having to fall back on shielding things behind an LLC, etc. I think in the event of an accident, etc., insurance will typically cover it (if you are covered), if not, I'd expect both of you would eventually be entangled in the legal hassles. The victim isn't going to be satisfied with an attempt to shuffle responsibility around. Not having insurance doesn't mean you wouldn't be liable.</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>First - call a lawyer. Seriously.</p>

<p>Then - are you going to be an EMPLOYEE of this photog, or CONTRACT LABOR? There is a huge difference, and you've got a whole other can of worms depending on the answer.</p>

<p>Now - a point on LLC v. not, and protecting your assets, etc. This is something I was stunned to learn, and I THINK it applies nationally. I KNOW it applies to my state, but at this moment I just can't verify my memory that this is federal, not state, law.<br>

If I am "Smith Photog, LLC" and I get sued, then yes, my personal assets ARE protected. An angry bride can NOT take my house, BUT she CAN take every last bit of my business property!!! My car, my cameras, my lights... every last piece of equipment used to conduct business could be taken & sold to cover a judgement against me. Without that property, I'm suddenly out of business & unable to work (and my car is still at risk!). Period.<br>

BUT<br>

If I am "Smith Photog" and I am a Sole Proprietership (NOT partnership, or any other business form) the rules are suddenly different if I get sued! In this case my personal property can be at risk, BUT they can NOT touch my equipment to the point I am put out of business!!<br>

Suddenly, that LLC model I was about to form doesn't look so attractive.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Re seizure of property by litigious clients - what Maria says is true - limited company status reduces but does not eliminate liability. In practice, of course, if you lease what you need to conduct business, your actual business property can be minimal (yes, good idea to talk to a lawyer, I am sure he/she will confirm this).</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>It's a lot of gray area. Even the IRS is vague (intentional, I think) over their own definitions about wether you are an independent contractor or an employee: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html<br /> From my experience- In NY State, I'm pretty sure that you don't meet enough of the standards to be an independent contractor. You would be considered an employee, regardless of how the photographer chooses to classify you or pay you. As an employee, you would be covered under their insurance, including liability and worker's comp. If their insurance doesn't cover you, they're still responsible. You get hurt on the job, the photographer pays. You unintentionally hurt someone on the job, the photographer pays. <br /> As a studio manager in the late 90's, I saw the photographer I worked for get told by the state that all of his assistants were employees, even the interns. He was 1099-ing them because it was easier. The state wasn't so much interested in taxes paid, but in proper insurance coverage. So from then on, taxes were withheld and the insurance coverage was increased. <br />NY State publishes an attempt at guidelines for the difference between independent contractors and employees. It's also a bit vague, but in general, if you aren't clear as to which side someone under your employ fits into, it's better to err on the side of caution- classify them as an employee. These are common law guidelines too, so it might be possible to use them from state to state. Definitely check, though. http://www.labor.state.ny.us/ui/PDFs/ia31814.pdf <br />Lastly, a wedding may be a planned event, but it's definitely not a controlled event. I don't think a photographer could go after you for poor quality of work. I don't think a bride could go after someone who she didn't have a contract with, or at the least, a canceled check to show payment for services. Lots of photographers perform poorly, get paid for it, the bride is unhappy, and no one gets sued. Gross negligence is another thing though, so don't get crazy.</p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

[thesaltypeanut]

<p>Serious question - has anyone ever heard of photographer getting sued where there was a judgment against them and they had to "give up" their equipment, studio, house and/or car?</p>

<p> </p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>1. In practice, if you are only working here and there for a photographer as a second shooter there is no way she is going to jump through the hoops to make you an "employee." Your status will be that of an independent contractor. It's simply too much work for her. If you aren't willing to do that, she'll find one of the other zillion kids begging to get a second shooter job.</p>

<p>2. Get liability insurance. I'm not talking errors and omissions coverage (yet). Here's why. It's cheap. 130 bucks a year will get you a million dollar policy. That way when a light stand falls on someone and splits their skull open you're covered. It only protects you against big accidents, but those are the ones that will bankrupt you or your business. Some venues require at least a million (big markets sometimes 2 million) in coverage to even shoot there, so it's not a bad idea.</p>

<p>With regard to E&O coverage--like I said not a bad idea, but I don't carry it. In the case of all cards failing or some other terrible happening, money really isn't going to make the couple happy or whole anyway. My liability for a mistake here may be in the thousands (but not tens of thousands of dollars) and for me that's an acceptable risk. I think it's actually easier to work out a deal that includes monetary compensation plus doing more photos than a deal that involves the insurance company and a claims adjuster. (I should mention I also have a close family member who is an attorney so I don't get as spooked by the threat of suit as some others. YMMV)</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>Juanita, it's not up to a photographer to decide the employment status of persons under their employ. He can't just call employees, independent contractors because it's too much work for him. He may be able to operate for years or even an entire career, without intervention from the authorities, but that doesn't make it legal. In addition, it's when unfortunate incidents happen that one may find out they should have insured all persons that are part of their team, including second shooters. </p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Senor,</p>

<p><strong>"it's not up to a photographer to decide the employment status of persons under their employ"</strong></p>

<p>While what the employee does and how they are compensated may help courts/IRS determine whether they are an employee or an IC, most temporarily employed second-shooters are legally going to be ICs. What I didn't express as clearly in my earlier post is that the primary shooter <em>could</em> hire you on as a true employee, but it's a greater cost and inconvenience for her and so she will most likely ensure that your compensation, benefits, working times, equipment use, and other factors clearly show an IC relationship.</p>

<p>http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=179115,00.html<br /> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=99921,00.html</p>

<p>These links help to explain that there isn't a hard and fast rule in the USA for determining employment status, but in my own reading (which is not a legal opinion) most second shooters fit safely within the IC column.</p>

<p>Feel free to provide contrary authority if you find additional insights. I read over your New York state labor commission link and I'm not thoroughly convinced that even under NY law (haven't read the actual cases, of course) a second shooter would generally fit many of the elements of a true employee. No single factor is dispositive, and I think I could successfully argue that the weight is still on the side of being an IC.</p>

<p>As such, OP, I think you should still consider carrying insurance--you might be covered you might not.<br>

Also, do you shoot for anyone else? Do you maintain your own business?</p>

[fotografz]

<p>The OP said she has a photography business. It would be wise to have business insurance for that anyway.</p>

<p>In that case, I'd consult with the insurance agent to make sure the OP's own business policy covers her when sub-contracting to another photo company. I'm pretty sure it will, since any photography work for any company is in effect sub-contracted services, not employee work.</p>

<p>I would also consult with the main photographer as to their insurance coverage. My policy covers those in my employ, or those who are sub-contracted with-in the scope of the business I am in. The grey area is whether theft of my assistant's gear would be covered. My experience with grey areas has been that the insurance company will deny it, and you have to fight it out. So, at the very least your own personal liability umbrella policy, AND specific <strong>business</strong> use property coverage of your gear is a wise move.</p>

<p>Lastly, riders on your home owner's policy is not business insurance. If you incur a loss while shooting for money, the insurance company WILL deny the claim ... which I learned the hard way. This true even for so called <em>"all inclusive property riders"</em> on home owner policies.</p>

<p>Conversely, if you incur a loss while using gear for personal reasons (like on vacation), the business policy will not cover the loss. Business insurance only covers business use. </p>

<p> </p>