Piggybacking off the insured

sfoster

Staff Member
Moderator
I understand some people pay a yearly premium for film insurance.

It seems like instead of buying insurance for myself, maybe I could find someone that already has a yearly contract.. maybe pay them a fraction of what it would cost to buy insurance myself, and then take them on board as a producer and use their insurance for my film.

Is there a problem with doing something like that ?
 
You mean a low budget French Connection? Pretty sure French Connection was an indie film.. the two production companies involved didn't exist before it was made, they were businesses formed to produce that film. :)
 
It almost certainly violates a policy to rent it to some one, the co-producer thing previously mentioned is a possible workaround.

Also annual insurance may or may not cover your chase scene without additional charges. A ball park rule of thumb is every time the word "gun" is in the script you've gotta add $200 to you insurance cost.

You also need a bit more then insurance to get a permit for that kind of scene. You'd need to close the street(s) and have police present. Generally the local film office needs at least a few weeks (30 days in NYC) notice and you need. In NYC you have to have a meeting with the local cops, and inform the community board. All of this could cost you things like compensation for every business on the block, compensation to the police for their time, get a bunch of background extras, have the art department greek every business name and recognizable brand on the block, ect.

And for the haters, there is such a thing as production insurance, holler at my boys: https://www.filmemporium.com/film-movies-web--tv
 
thanks reed

all good food for thought
perhaps my character will holster his gun for the chase part.. really kills the intensity not to have people shooting at him though
 
Holstering the gun won't make any of those requirements go away.

I'm not trying to discourage you or anything, just trying to make you aware of what goes into doing this. If you can't afford this scene look into funding options. Honestly if your script is good someone will fund it.
 
Holstering the gun won't make any of those requirements go away.

I'm not trying to discourage you or anything, just trying to make you aware of what goes into doing this. If you can't afford this scene look into funding options. Honestly if your script is good someone will fund it.

Holstering the gun + jacket means it won't have to actually be seen during the chase and hence not present. The script is good but it's not a feature length, do people really fund shorts ? :hmm:
 
Holstering the gun + jacket means it won't have to actually be seen during the chase and hence not present. The script is good but it's not a feature length, do people really fund shorts ? :hmm:

Yes, you can get crowd funding by internet panhandling, finding private investors is tricky but can be done. You probably don't need much to shoot a short.

say you did your shot in question in NYC on a street with one or two bodegas but no super recognizable businesses. Costs:

NYC Shoot Permit: $300 (covers entire production, not 'per day'
Production insurance increase $300 (guess)
NYPD assistance: free, but they'll help themselves to crafty and coffee.
3 PAs to control foot traffic: $60 in food cost (use buddies)
5 extras to run away/ generally be in the background: $50 in food costs (buddies).

If you can shoot it in under an hour and not really effect the business then you won't need to give them anything, yeah meeting with the cops before hand and jumping through hoops is a pain but I'm sure you can find $710 if the scene is worth it, its worth it.

Is this true for movies that use fake guns and computer graphics to simulate gunfire? There are no real guns or even blanks. I'm not talking about a chase, but on a set or private property.

The insurance company I personally use does not consider replica guns that cannot fire anything a weapon so they don't consider having/ using them on set a 'hazardous activity'. Other companies might. Also I wouldn't go waving anything that look remotely like a real weapon around on in public place without notifying the police and getting proper permits. They tend to frown on that sort of thing.
 
The insurance company I personally use does not consider replica guns that cannot fire anything a weapon so they don't consider having/ using them on set a 'hazardous activity'.

That is common sense and as an After Effects user, I'm glad to hear that. I appreciate the link to your company and will bookmark the site.



Also I wouldn't go waving anything that look remotely like a real weapon around on in public place without notifying the police and getting proper permits. They tend to frown on that sort of thing.

Totally agree. Most people assume guns are real, until they can get a close look.
 
Piggy-backing

Most of you have the (internal) feeling that "piggybacking" is not a good practice for so many reasons.
Go with this feeling -
I will list out a few reasons here
#1 - transacting insurance without a license is not legal
#2 - the person who is prostituting their policy is exposing themselves to a (potential) claim, which could ruin a perfect track record - and for what? doing someone a favor?
#3 - in the event of a loss, collecting a deductible could be tough, considering the "piggy-backer" has no money
There are other pitfalls and concerns - I understand what (lack of) money can do to cloud one's thinking
I have always said that there is a "value" to having an open line of communication with your broker. After all, a "broker" represents your, whereas an "agent" represents the insurance company.
I love what I do and I am here to chat, anytime - call me
I will not lead you into a dark path - Dave :cool:
888-959-0772 www.movieinsure.com
 
I'm not an insurance expert, but I know of cases where the insurer will refuse coverage because the customer did something that was not mentioned in the policy. To put it another way, the insurer will say that they never agreed to piggybacking, so, since the customer did that, it will not provide coverage, because the customer breached the contract.

The legal term, as I understand it, is non-disclosure of a material fact or material change.

If I were you, I'd canvass this with the insurance agent and insurance company, to see what they have to say.
 
Back
Top