# For what reasons and how often is a photographer sued?



## SteveKelly (Mar 15, 2014)

Opening up shop in the next year or so. Basement is under cunstruction for a studio. I will also be doing weddings. I have been a second shooter to about a half dozen weddings and have done 4 on my own for family and friends - just a little background-.
I am looking into insurance now, but was just curious on how often photgraphers are actually sued! Is this a common occurence and why? For what reasons (in all areas of photography)?


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 15, 2014)

Who knows but once is enough for anyone.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 15, 2014)

If you are asking whether it is a good idea to do it without insurance, the answer is no.

I pay about $600 per year with hill and usher.  They cover my equipment, liability and error and omission.  

You can get sued with a lot of things.  I have not been sued before but the most common is being sued because b&g do not like the result.  

There are other things you can get sued on.. for example you may be shooting and mistakenly back up to their wedding cake.   They may sue you for ruining their wedding. Or what if you are shooting and fall into the river along with your back up cameras.  Now you cant cover the wedding.

The list is endless.  It is better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 15, 2014)

I don't know anyone personally who's been sued, but in today's litigious society, it's only a matter of time.  People can, and do, sue for anything, and no matter how right you are and how wrong they are, it still hurts the wallet.


----------



## zmh4life (Mar 15, 2014)

Whatever happened to the wedding photographer that was being sued for $300k


----------



## Overread (Mar 15, 2014)

You'll also find there are those who will threaten suing you without much provocation. Having an established relationship an setup with a local lawyer means that you'll be ready to deal with any hint of threat by going straight through official channels directly. Sometimes a stiff worded letter can end things before they get more serious (and a letter is a lot cheaper than having to attend court even if its only the small claims court).


----------



## KmH (Mar 15, 2014)

The reasons and the frequency a photographer is sued is usually directly proportional to a photographer's honesty, their ability to run a business in a consistent manner, the quality of their contract, and their ability to deal effectively with customers.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 15, 2014)

It can be as simple as you get into an accident and never made it to the wedding to take pictures.  They will try to sue you more than the contracted amount.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 16, 2014)

If I'd been worried about getting sued, I probably never would've hung my shingle out.

Honestly, that's something I've never really even given a passing thought to...


----------



## skieur (Mar 16, 2014)

I have always been highly successful in court, so I don't worry about it.


----------



## webestang64 (Mar 17, 2014)

Don't here about to many getting sued.....but in this crazy world, COVER YOU ASS>>>>>!!!!!!!

I mean, if some cheese wiz is suing McDonnell's because he spilled his hot coffee in his lap while driving, had an accident and is suing because the coffee was hot and that's what caused the accident........! You never know who and for what you can get sued for........!


----------



## BrickHouse (Mar 17, 2014)

One of the things we talk about in medicine is that if a physician is honest, relatable, with good bedside manner, and a relationship with their patient, they are much less likely to be sued. I'd wager those same traits carry over into photography.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

you can sue almost over anything in America. The problem isn't always about if you lose in court either. IT is the expense of fighting the court case.


----------



## ronlane (Mar 17, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> Who knows but once is <MORE THAN> enough for anyone.



FIFY


----------



## NedM (Mar 17, 2014)

Honestly, I tried to avoid any legal conflictions with any of my clients. That is why I always build rapport and a relationship with my clients. That way, if anything were to go wrong, I could just easily discuss the matters with my clients openly, without having to worry about getting sued. Having great communication skills can go a long way in photography.


----------



## robbins.photo (Mar 17, 2014)

Why do most photographers get sued? For asking silly questions on the internet of course. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to call my lawyer.. lol.

Seriously though, as Robin mentioned don't run a business without insurance. Just don't do it. Also as someone else mentioned people today are very quick to threaten law suits at the drop of a hat, but in truth very few actually wind up going through with it. Small claims court is a hassle and a real lawsuit with actual lawyers is an expensive proposition indeed, in general it will usualy cost you more to sue someone that what you could possibly recoup in damages. So real lawsuits are actually not as common as you might think.

However you never know when your going to run into one and it is completely foolish not to have insurance to cover such an event should it occur. Just my 2 cents worth of course.


----------



## petrochemist (Mar 17, 2014)

I remember hearing of a case in the UK some years back, where someone sued their neighbour, for failing to practice his longbow on Sundays. (Apparently the law requiring freemen of England to do this was never repealed.)
The story has it that the defendant was found guilty and fined a shilling (5p), but was awarded costs.

Seems to me this is the way these frivolous cases should be handled.  Coffee is meant to be hot, and people should take reasonable care in where they're going/what they're doing.

 If a Photographer is incapable of producing reasonable photos for a client then they are failing in their contract. With reasonable care & preparation this should be a very unusual situation, but I hear of many cases where it's just incompetence.  If they client is paying well under the going rate than that's all they should expect.


----------



## skieur (Mar 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> you can sue almost over anything in America. The problem isn't always about if you lose in court either. IT is the expense of fighting the court case.



You don't seem to understand law suits in Canada or the US which are very similar.  If you win, the judge determines whether you recover court costs or not.  If you have to pay costs it is all relative in the sense of paying $500,000 to your lawyer is worthwhile if you gain over $1,000,000 in the settlement of the lawsuit.  If you are on the defense you should be countersuing, which could lead to an out-of-court settlement.


----------



## The_Traveler (Mar 17, 2014)

There is a thread going on now titled, "best baby of 2014" that gives you an idea of how photographers set themselves up to be sued.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 17, 2014)

skieur said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you can sue almost over anything in America. The problem isn't always about if you lose in court either. IT is the expense of fighting the court case.
> ...


or maybe you don't. I have a judgment now from someone that I won the case with. Been trying to collect for seven years. They haven't paid a dime. summons them back to court. They don't show up. They move, hire someone to go find them. ive hired THREE collections agencies tracking these and trying to collect. Find out where they are, file another court hearing. They don't show up again. Eventually they end up on a warrant for no show. But that still is separate from my money. Two different things. And you have to know where they are, to summons them and serve them anything. Each time I have them summonsed, I have to pay for it. so my tally on what this costs goes higher, and higher, and higher.
dude. you have no freakn clue what I know. And this isn't a small amount of money they are on criminal edges here not small claims.
A court can award whatever they want. collecting any of it is a different matter.
Thanks for depressing me though. I WANT MY MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lets just say, if assets are transferred or hidden. And the people in question arent easily found. Good luck collecting.

That is people that owe me money.

re-edit: here is one for you.

come to think of it.......

 I know another guy right now who has a judgement against him up near a million dollars from a decade ago. He hasn't paid. He goes to court he just basically says he doesn't have any money. so much for that judgement. I think he has been picked up a couple times and held for court overnight. But they just let him go again. And say he spends ten nights in jail in his life over this pick up and let go. on a million dollars he is making a 100k a night to sleep. And no one even thinks he will every pay it they expect him not to. Most people couldn't.


----------



## skieur (Mar 19, 2014)

I am not sure how you got into your situations.  Professional photography involves a contract, a deposit, and payments before the event.  Credit card info. as part of the deposit can also be a requirement of your contract.  So, even in a non-final payment situation, there should not be a large loss.

In a car accident, the insurance company pays the claim, so you do not have to go after the individual.

Liability is also part of house insurance, which covers another area of potential law suits, so the insurance company pays those claims as well.

I can't say that I have ever got into situations with any individual who has no money, no assets, and no job.


----------



## Steve5D (Mar 19, 2014)

skieur said:


> So, even in a non-final payment situation, there should not be a large loss.



And all the credit card owner has to do is file a dispute. Credit card companies side with their card holders far more often than they do merchants...


----------



## skieur (Mar 19, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > So, even in a non-final payment situation, there should not be a large loss.
> ...



I would tend to think that a signed contract is hard to dispute.


----------



## Designer (Mar 19, 2014)

SteveKelly said:


> I am looking into insurance now,



Does your insurance policy cover being sued?


----------



## skieur (Mar 19, 2014)

Designer said:


> SteveKelly said:
> 
> 
> > I am looking into insurance now,
> ...



Your house insurance policy covers liability (law suits) up to whatever your coverage is related to reading the terms carefully.

Car insurance covers up to whatever your comprehensive, liability, personal injury coverage is related to accidents, etc.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 19, 2014)

skieur said:


> I am not sure how you got into your situations. Professional photography involves a contract, a deposit, and payments before the event. Credit card info. as part of the deposit can also be a requirement of your contract. So, even in a non-final payment situation, there should not be a large loss.
> 
> In a car accident, the insurance company pays the claim, so you do not have to go after the individual.
> 
> ...


I had a contract. Lmao.
Im not quite sure you are comprehending this or maybe you "know it" but haven't really actually been to court lots of times actually dealing with this type of thing.
I had a car accident with someone without insurance before too. They were found at fault. my insurance paid for my vehicle and tried to get the money out of the party who was found at fault. Insurance company put them on a redialer for like six months calling their house. I don't think they ever did get it think they wrote it off.  I had to pay my deductible for a grand.  so it still cost me a grand. And I didn't even do anything.


----------



## skieur (Mar 19, 2014)

I was once threatened with a libel suit by a boss who did not understand the law.  I knew that I could successfully countersue him without a lawyer, so I told him to go ahead.  When I pointed out some of his "legal problems" in attempting a law suit against me, he backed off.


----------



## skieur (Mar 19, 2014)

bribrius said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure how you got into your situations. Professional photography involves a contract, a deposit, and payments before the event. Credit card info. as part of the deposit can also be a requirement of your contract. So, even in a non-final payment situation, there should not be a large loss.
> ...



If you had a contract, you should have been largely paid up front, before you started your photo gig.  If not, you need to redo your contract.

In car accidents, auto insurance is legally required in some areas, or there is another fund for claims of un-insured or under-insured drivers.  In any event, you insurance company SHOULD have been paying the deductible when the other driver was at fault.  You pay the deductible ONLY when you are at fault. (I did some temporary work as an insurance underwriter at one point)

Moreover any potentially permanent injury and that includes an extremely broad area from hitting your head to potential future arthritis can lead to "apparently substantial" but appropriate settlements.


You need a new insurance company and/or a good lawyer.


----------



## Designer (Mar 19, 2014)

I once worked for a designer who sued a craftsman.  I accurately predicted he would lose.  He also attempted physical coercion to make me lie under oath on his behalf.  I refused.  He lost.  He fired me.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 19, 2014)

skieur said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I have a lawyer. I don't call him unless it is in the thousands because that is what he will charge me anyway. He is great though. My last one was better but died of a heart attack trying to bike ride and get his fat butt in shape (god bless his soul).  And I love my insurance company.  I have under insured/uninsured full coverage (comp/collision) for 1 million commercial rider on auto. The deductible is a grand. The max is a million. I back over a kid in a walmart and someone sues me for over a million, well I guess I probably should get umbrella insurance too. Anything up to a grand I pay. just how it is. im not sure where you are getting your info. my collision coverage is a grand deductible. uninsured a grand deductible. im supposed to pay a grand. im not sure where you get your info


----------



## skieur (Mar 20, 2014)

As to where I am getting my info. ...from personal experience with major accidents and personal injury. No deductible was payable because the other guy was at fault. Of course the insurance company will not necessarily tell you that. You need to know the insurance regulations. My lawyer was voted the best in Canada by his peers in dealing with auto accidents and personal injury so his reputation precedes him when he talks to insurance companies.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 20, 2014)

skieur said:


> As to where I am getting my info. ...from personal experience with major accidents and personal injury. No deductible was payable because the other guy was at fault. Of course the insurance company will not necessarily tell you that. You need to know the insurance regulations. My lawyer was voted the best in Canada by his peers in dealing with auto accidents and personal injury so his reputation precedes him when he talks to insurance companies.


you're wrong. And that's Canada. you are thinking about accidents with people that have insurance. in which case his insurance would have paid it and I wouldn't have to pay the deductible as it wouldn't be filed on my policy. But it was filed on my policy even though he was totally at fault, as he had no insurance. If I want to recover my deductible I would have to sue him for the grand. As he had no insurance to pay the full cost.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 20, 2014)

Read this interesting article about weddings (dentists, etc) and contracts
You ruined my wedding ? and you?re suing me? - MarketWatch


----------



## bribrius (Mar 20, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Read this interesting article about weddings (dentists, etc) and contracts
> You ruined my wedding ? and you?re suing me? - MarketWatch


it has been like that for a while with contracts. individuals and companies taking advantage in contracts making them very one sided or restrictive to the other party. If you are found with a illegal or unenforceable contract all of the contract or certain language can me thrown from the bench. i have heard they have laws on illegal contracts (fines or something) but haven't actually heard of anyone being fined or sent to jail over one. I have been VERY careful in having the couple i've used drawn up (not photo related). With my attorney explaining the fine line between having a viable, fair and equitable contract in a court proceeding, and having one that pisses off the judge so it comes back to bite me in the behind when he tosses it out and nails me to the cross. some contracts (especially realestate or tenant law) can get you in real trouble if you aren't careful. 

Generally speaking a contract cant supercede federal or state law or restrict guaranteed rights. There are things a person can sign a contract and agree too. And there are things they cant agree to signing a contract even if they want to as it is a relinquishing of a certain right they are guaranteed. so if you write a contract that does that, you may have a big wake up call when you walk in a courtroom with it. People still try to corrupt the language and do it though. Because they are stupid and think they can get away with it. But one person calls b.s. on the contract and you end up in the court and that is when it hits the fan. My attorney warned me over this more than once. careful what you put in one, and you cant put in whatever you want, no matter how much you might want to. Go too far, the judge will take it out on you.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 20, 2014)

off subject. But same with prenups I think. I know when I did mine years ago (nolonger in effect and im broke now anyways) my old attorney told me the same thing. if I didn't volunteer to give up enough in the prenup to make it seem equitable or fair then in the divorce the judge would make sure I gave even more. course my first thought was "okay, we divorce I want her to get little to nothing make it happen". But he corrected me on that very quickly. Also said children trump. prenup cant supercede child welfare the judge would drop or toss if it came down to child welfare in divorce. so I volunteered what I thought would be fair. it is all about fair, equitable trade, not one sided, not too right restrictive, blah blah. id check with a attorney.

edit: something else.
Big words don't help either unless you are paying for them to have it reviewed by their own lawyer. If they walk into court and say "I didn't understand what I was signing I guess" it can open a entire can of worms. I had this one contract I thought was bullet proof. Lawyer thought about it, came back and said "if they don't understand it, you are going to have trouble enforcing this." Basically (forget the term) but it needs to be reasonably understandable by the average person. Reasonably. which means at least most of it should be fairly self explanatory and clear for the average person. to avoid a court room issue of "I didn't really understand what I was signing". And he rewrote it again to dumb it down to layman level.
Don't listen to me though, contract question. Go hire a attorney (that specializes in contract law).


Another mistake people make. Having the wrong kind of attorney. While "general" attorneys have their uses and can handle many simple things. The easier way to cover the gambit if you have lots of varying legal is with a firm that has more than one attorney and more than one specialty. For instance, my attorney is part of a firm. He specializes, but I have something else I need out of his specialty they have a meeting and he consults others. if the case proceeds it would be passed to the attorney that specializes in that or my attorney would take a secondary position. Never been in a case that involved and had to do it but generally, a firm with more specialties and lawyers has more options. So you have your regular attorney, but what the firm gives you is more options (and knowledge to draw from) for what comes your way. And your original retainer is transferred throughout the firm in most cases if the case carries forward. I have noticed they tend to be more expensive at least from my experience than a single or generalized attorney. so for most it may not be worth it if you don't have a lot of business related or personal legal issues.  just a suggestion.


----------



## JoeW (Mar 23, 2014)

SteveKelly said:


> Opening up shop in the next year or so. Basement is under cunstruction for a studio. I will also be doing weddings. I have been a second shooter to about a half dozen weddings and have done 4 on my own for family and friends - just a little background-.
> I am looking into insurance now, but was just curious on how often photgraphers are actually sued! Is this a common occurence and why? For what reasons (in all areas of photography)?



Depends upon the type of work you do.  If you shoot weddings than your likely suits will probably be from people unhappy with their deal (number of photos, quality of photos).  If you do corporate work, you're talking about Legal departments contacting you for things like NDA/trade secret issues (or counter-suits when you sue a former corporate client).  Shooting in the field and you may get trespassing suits.  Models or on-location and you can get injuries suffered by your team.  Run workshops (and some get canceled) than maybe breach of contract.

The type of work you do affects the type of legal risks you face.


----------

