To the OP: It is an argument that will always be won by the
insurance company, They wrote the policy, set the terms and
sold it. You read the policy, asked questions or had the
opportunity to do so, and you agreed to the terms and
continue to pay the premiums.
It will certainly cost you more than the cost of a camera to
hire a lawyer to argue the case in a court. I doubt if any
lawyer will take the case on a pro bono or even contingency
basis because you have no case.
You could file the case in a small claims court in the USA,
don't know if such exist in the UK. Perhaps there is a
legal aid group that can advise.
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
"Chuck" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| I'd bet that this can be argued either way, since a
computer is required (at
| least with some digital cameras) to complete the function
of the camera,
| Namely retriving the pictures and processing them, and
finally printing
| them.
| "Peter Hutchison" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
| news:(E-Mail Removed)...
| > On Thu, 06 May 2004 16:30:08 +0100, PFC
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| >
| > >Hello
| > >
| > >Sorry if this off-topic
| > >
| > >Can a digital camera be considered computer equipment?
| > >
| > >Having accidentally and a irreparably damaged my
digital camera, a
| > >Epsom PhotoPC 850Z (bought Sept 2001 second hand for
£300 via ebay),
| > >I contacted my insurers, SAGA home insurance.
| > >
| > A digital camera does NOT require a computer to operate.
Unlike a
| > printer or scanner, they require a computer to be able
to operate it.
| > A camera is designed to be used -away- from a computer,
and only
| > connected to one to download pictures. So your insurer
is correct, I'm
| > afraid.
| >
| > Peter Hutchison
| > Windows FAQ
| >
http://www.pcguru.plus.com/
|
|