In general, the majority of artists do not tend to insure their artwork or their studios.
However, this poll had a very low response despite the fact that one of the responses was 'no insurance' - which was the option picked by 42% of the respondents. Hence it's probably too low to be reliable.
An explanation for the low response might be that this reflects a bade case of 'head in sand'. I'll expand on that.
Below is the chart for the poll results - right click the image and open in another tab to see it more clearly
|March 2012 Poll: What aspects of your art and art business do you insure?|
What you insure
The top three categories of art that you insure are:
- art studio (via your household insurance)
- artwork in exhibitions or galleries
- public liability (presumably this is tutors or gallery owners talking?)
What you ignore
The top three art-related matters that you ignore are:
- business interruption (your studio has just burned down, destroying all your tooks, art materials and stock - and you have no insurance)
- employers liability - (because you've not quite round to starting up an atelier complete with studio assistant as yet)
- equal third
- product liability - presumably because so few of you are supplying products
- art studio (business) - presumably reflecting that relatively few have separate premises for their art studio
Why do people ignore insurance? Maybe because it all seems too difficult? Or maybe because it seems too expensive relative to the risk? If you'd like to learn more try taking a look at the links below.
Why do you think people don't get to grips with insurance for their art and art business?