As a professional photographer, equipment replacement is a cost of
doing business. It's one you want to control as much as possible, of
course, but unless you're a bloody tightwad light me, you'll budget an
annual spend based on obsolescence as well as wear and tear.
The problem here is that the specific camera is a big ticket enough
item that the damage gave it near zero value. A planned five year
amortization schedule was shortened. Insurance riders definitely help
when a big ticket item is on the front end of the amortization
schedule, but is generally not worth it once the equipment has gone
past the first two years. Also, once the item is obsoleted by a newer
model, it may be better to do the trade up if it's within the first
two years and keep the insurance rider active on the new item.
Anything within 3-5 years on the schedule is generally a financial
wash. Anything beyond the amortization schedule, unless a high-end
item like a monster 600mm F2 lens, is better off being totally "self
insured" as replacements on the used market are generally available at
reduced cost. But such items are typically placed on a longer
amortization schedule and have far higher residual value.
In fact, if the item is costly, and has a residual value similar to
the purchase price, then it makes sense to keep a rider on it.
AG (green visor) Schnozz
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/