
How I Lent My Camera Kit and Had It ‘Legally Stolen’ - FireBeyond
https://petapixel.com/2018/10/29/how-i-lent-my-4500-camera-kit-for-95-and-had-it-legally-stolen/
======
Someone1234
I visited Kitsplit, holy misleading advertising batman.

> Your gear is always covered. KitSplit renters must show proof of insurance
> coverage, which we vet, or they must buy it through us or leave a deposit
> for the full value of the gear.

Always covered unless they just outright steal it, then not at all covered.
There's numerous examples of similar text throughout their site. In fact I
spent a good 15 minutes and finally found this mid way through the final
paragraph of their insurance page:

> Please note, however, that the insurance accepted on KitSplit is industry
> standard equipment rental insurance and does not cover some rare instances,
> such as if a renter commits fraud.

They also say things like this:

> We strongly encourage all owners to have their own annual insurance policy
> for their gear, in addition to the coverage provided by KitSplit. [..] We
> strongly encourage all owners to review and understand the terms of their
> insurance policy and what it covers and does not cover.

What they mean is that neither your insurance or theirs will cover fraud. So
using the service, even double insured, is high risk.

> We are a small team of filmmakers and photographers

Kind of odd in contrast to what you said about yourselves about your most
recent round of funding:

[https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kitsplit-the-
camera...](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kitsplit-the-camera-
rental-marketplace-raises-21-million-to-democratize-the-film-and-video-
production-process-300603082.html)

~~~
CPLX
Even when they say it it’s still misleading. Fraud is not a layman’s term.
Theft or stealing is. The obvious takeaway for a normal person when seeing the
words “rare” and “fraud” together like that is to assume that it means
something other than stealing. Because people stealing nice cameras isn’t even
slightly rare.

------
CPLX
This is batshit insane.

There’s exactly one thing a middleman company like this is supposed to be
useful for, which is facilitating the transaction and standing behind it.

I have no idea why anyone is defending this company, their policy is obviously
unethical unless they have very visible clear disclaimers equal in weight to
their other communications saying they aren’t responsible for the renter
stealing from you. In which case it’s just a dumb business model.

~~~
danShumway
This. The best interpretation of this situation where KitSplit hasn't done
anything dishonest still looks really bad for them.

At the point where you're already worrying about all of these details, why
would you use KitSplit instead of just opening your own business and posting
classifieds?

I ran into this with a photo company my parents used to use (Snapfish, no
reason not to name them). My Mom called me up one night and said that some of
her older photos wouldn't load any more. Did some debugging, contacted
support, apparently the photos had just vanished during a database migration
one day.

They gave me the same excuse -- "our service isn't meant to be used for
backups and we don't guarantee any reliability." This is not something that
they ever make clear in any advertising, but whatever. Thankfully I had my own
backups of her computer, and afterwards I told her to stop using the service.
My reasoning was, "even assuming that they weren't dishonest, you're left with
a pretty crappy service that doesn't do anything." It's like buying a battery
that doesn't guarantee that it will transmit power.

So the best case scenario for KitSplit that they want us to take away from
this is... they're just a slightly fancier Ebay? Not a good advertisement.

------
unstatusthequo
Lawyer here. Not legal advice.

Theft of property is criminal. Not sure how you reasoned yourself sideways on
that with red tape bullshit. Sue the company and the renter in small claims
court and have some fun with it. Company will be forced to deal with it and
that might get them to eventually change their bullshit policy. Credit card of
renter should be pre-auth’d for full replacement of new item. How they aren’t
doing that is negligent and asking for trouble. So is having an overly
restrictive insurance policy. Makes me think the company has terrible legal
counsel.

~~~
turk-
Seems like a straightforward case for small claims court against KitSplit. You
just have to sell the judge on a very straightforward case. The thing about
not getting fucked over in situations like this is having the intestinal
fortitude to bully companies like KitSplit into making it right for you.
You'll probably get compensated by them by blogging about it but you probably
could have just muscled them to give you your $4.5k in small claims court.

------
dickfickling
I don't see why KitSplit wouldn't just cover this out-of-pocket. If it really
only happens 0.02% of the time, the cost of reimbursing the lender can't
possibly be higher than amount of good-will lost by not doing so.

~~~
jacquesm
> If it really only happens 0.02% of the time

That may be the problem right there. It most likely happens far more
frequently so they can't insure _and_ they can't self-insure. So the loss of
good-will is small in comparison to the loss of funds. A broken model with
sufficient marketing money behind it is indistinguishable from a working
company right up until the moment the whole thing comes crashing down.

~~~
wmf
I just did the math on this and 0.02% of $4,000 is around $1, while KitSplit
apparently charges 20% fees, or $20 on a $100 rental. It sure seems like they
could afford to self-insure.

Or are you saying that they're lying about the 0.02%?

~~~
toyg
Likely. And even if they weren’t lying, admitting full liability would be an
incentive to fraud (arrange for your kit to be “stolen” by a co-conspirator,
then collect the reimbursement) so you would probably see that percentage
soar.

~~~
astura
If you wanted to commit insurance fraud, you wouldn't get a third party
involved (with some vetting process and photos), too much effort, leaves too
much of a paper trail, etc.

You'd just smash a window or kick in a door then file a police report then an
insurance claim.

------
PeterHoang718
Peter H here, the original author of this piece, with an update. I want
everyone to know that while this has been a really trying situation, KitSplit
has gone to great lengths to help. KitSplit has now fully compensated me for
the full value of the gear that was lost, even though this is beyond their
legal requirements. They’ve also assured me they are making improvements to
their policies and will have additional updates soon. Even before this
happened, I continued to use KitSplit —in part because I have been impressed
with their customer service throughout this experience. Now, I am pleased that
they went above and beyond to help, and are taking this as an opportunity to
reflect and improve their system.

~~~
LargeWu
There's legal requirements, and then there's ethical requirements, which are
not necessarily the same.

If they are supposedly vetting renters, then it should be incumbent upon them
to stand behind their vetting. They should also very unequivocally state that
if the renter just walks off with your gear you will not be compensated.

So sure, maybe you're getting repaid by KitSplit because you wrote a blog post
about it, but what about everybody else who this has happened to. I doubt
you're the only one. If they improve their practices because of this that's
great, but the fact that it took months for them to come around, and only
after they got some bad publicity, is not a good sign.

------
dopeboy
Ugh, that really sucks. I worked on the same idea back in 2013 before Kitsplit
came around [0]. Funnily enough, theft didn't keep me up at night, damage did.
Especially hard to detect internal damage.

I've met Lizbeth and Kristina and they are solid, thoughtful people committed
to helping creators. I think they played this hand incorrectly, however. I
can't figure out why they wouldn't eat the cost here and work with their
insurance provider to get a 'voluntary separation' clause as part of their
coverage so this doesn't happen in the future.

[0] - [http://dopeboy.github.io/Lessons/](http://dopeboy.github.io/Lessons/)

------
combatentropy
This appeal by insurance companies to Voluntary Parting may be legal but it's
wrong.

Suppose you are in Disneyland with your $4,500 camera. Someone comes up to
you, pulls out a gun, and says, "Give me your camera." So you do. Is that not
theft? Now suppose instead someone comes up to you and offers to take a
picture of you and your family but then runs off with your camera. Somehow
this falls outside of normal insurance and is called Voluntary Parting. This
is ironic because the first instance is actually more voluntary, because at
least you knew what was happening.

I suppose this began in the insurance industry to stop the bleeding by naive
owners, who entrusted their stuff to someone that the average person would
not. But it seems to me that this could have been dealt with in a clause about
negligence, which is an established legal topic. There is no need to lie by
calling it Voluntary.

Either way, I believe the writer's parting was neither voluntary nor
negligent. KitSplit should cover it if the renter runs off with the gear ---
or else make it abundantly clear that you need insurance and that you need to
explicitly ask your insurance company for the extra coverage for "Voluntary
Parting."

~~~
romwell
"Voluntary Parting" is just insurance contract lingo to absolve them of paying
out in this particular scenario.

It's called so on purpose, to divert attention, in the spirit of the "PATRIOT"
Act: the meaning is the opposite of what the name implies.

Any sane naming would call this "Not getting your shit back" exemption, but
hey, that actually calls into question getting this insurance in the first
place.

So, yes, no matter what KitSplit and their insurance say, the coverage is
simply not there.

------
tofof
Also, the author's choice of title is deceptive. He did not have it 'legally'
lost in any way. Crime -- fraud or theft -- most certainly happened, which is
why the police became involved. _(Note - the author twice mentions the
involvement of the NYPD and once claims that the police refused to participate
because it wasn 't a criminal matter. Perhaps he meant to say 'formerly of the
NYPD' and 'from the PI', but it's at best unclear. I suspect the police
refused to get involved with his civil dispute with the insurance company; the
author is certainly not careful to distinguish between the various legal
elements.)_

His insurance through KitSplit has a legally-sound clause allowing them to
deny coverage for 'voluntary parting' (a term which explicitly includes
criminal fraud). But that doesn't make the thief's actions legal.

Again IL-specific, but almost certainly generalizes: "theft" as far as the
criminal code is concerned --- which is different than what an insurance
contract means by the term --- happens whenever a person "knowingly obtains or
exerts unauthorized control over property and intends" (through several
possible mechanisms) "to deprive the owner permanently of the use of that
property." [0] Definitely includes what happened here, definitely illegal on
the thief's part.

0:
[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&Ch...](http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqEnd=39200000&SeqStart=36500000)
at "Sec. 16-1. Theft."

~~~
FireBeyond
And certainly, as many people have pointed out, "neglect" to return your
rental car to Hertz and watch how quickly a warrant is issued for your arrest
for GTA - it's certainly not considered "not a criminal matter".

~~~
Scoundreller
Once I was a bit late and got back to the drop-off location after close. They
tried their very best to make it impossible to drop-off after-hours (can't
even slip keys under door).

When I called the rental co. to see what I could do (e.g. extend a day), their
centralized call centre script went something like this:

"blah blah blah you had a contract with us, you have to immediately go drop
the car off at one of these other locations, blah blah blah".

Why make me sound like a criminal when I called YOU to figure out a plan?

Anywho, came back the next day and paid for an extra day with no added
penalties/handcuffs. Much more convenient than bee-lining it to their downtown
location.

------
sublupo
It seems pretty obvious that the author was wronged by the renter. Also, it
looks like this is not the first time that the robber stole something
(illegally, even though the insurance is exempt from paying). So then why is
the author hiding the robbers identity? In this case I would hope that the
author would display all known pictures and information about the robber, in
hopes that he will be found out at least shamed.

------
parliament32
Why are the photos of the thief blurred out? Convenience stores often have a
"wall of shame" of shoplifters, is this any different?

Also,

>KitSplit has now fully compensated me for the full value of the gear that was
lost

smells a lot like trying to fix the bad publicity around what's, frankly, a
bullshit situation. If I rent a car from a rental company and just don't
return it, is that """voluntary parting""" therefore not theft? I don't
understand how the author got talked into thinking that this is somehow
legally okay. If I were him I'd definitely be taking this to small claims
court.

------
skanga
Is this “Voluntary Parting” nonsense specific to KitSplit or is this more
widespead in the industry. Anyone know? For example when I rent my car thru
Turo they say the same thing.

~~~
astura
From what I can tell, "voluntary parting" appears to be an insurance term not
a legal one. Basically, it's just an exclusion on insurance coverage - you
experience a loss under these circumstances, we won't cover it. The author is
confusing insurance coverage with the law and claiming it was "legally
stolen," which is nonsense.

Saw an article about a jewelry company gave a million and a half dollars worth
of inventory to a fake armored car company and their insurance company denied
the claim due to this exclusion and it was upheld on appeal, ouch.

They say it's a standard exclusion

>There are no gear rental insurance providers that cover voluntary parting
when the renter purchases the policy. This treatment of voluntary parting is
standard in the insurance industry and is not unique to KitSplit.

(I'm guessing a policy that covers "voluntary parting" is cost prohibitive. I
guess it sorta makes sense - otherwise you wouldn't have an incentive to vet
anyone.)

As an aside, I encourage everyone to always read their full insurance
polic(ies), misunderstanding about insurance coverage is common.

~~~
derwiki
I just watched an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry's car was stolen by his
mechanic, but insurance wouldn't cover it because he gave the mechanic his
keys (voluntary parting)

------
uptown
"I still use KitSplit today, but not as much as I used to."

Did KitSplit give away his principles too?

~~~
markdown
His principles were "legally stolen".

------
knieveltech
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a coworker six or seven years
ago. Dude comes to me to get me to help him spec out a web-based "tool
sharing" service. I told him that what he was proposing, first and foremost,
automated discovery for would-be tool thieves and politely declined to involve
myself in his project.

------
hnaccy
Why blur the photos?

~~~
wmf
Doxing isn't good, even for accused criminals. You could get sued or even
(rarely) trigger some kind of vigilante justice overreaction.

~~~
joecool1029
>Doxing isn't good, even for accused criminals.

Sure it is, a cursory search of a person before going into business with him
is wise to do and places like forums often dox serial scammers. This guy is
going to continue to scam and it will take a long time before law enforcement
actually does something. Having that information out there might save some
people from getting screwed over in the future.

>You could get sued or even (rarely) trigger some kind of vigilante justice
overreaction.

To be fair you could be sued for just about anything. By the sound of it, I
don't think this guy is going to be able to fund a legal team. Also, unless
you enticed a vigilante to 'go get him', I don't think you're liable posting
details and an account of your experience. Blur out nonpublic information like
his drivers license #, passport #, or SSN.

EDIT: I should add, I was a very early OTC bitcoin trader. We had these
assholes that could come in and scam $10 paypal trades all day everyday. Part
of having the details out for members like 'bitscotty' was so law enforcement
could see it was a long and documented pattern. People who didn't research
still got scammed, but their accounts afterward would get added to the pile
and eventually the police actually took action.

------
ValentineC
From Kitsplit's statement at the bottom of the article:

> _Our vetting system has successfully blocked millions of dollars worth of
> theft, and our incidence rate is .02% in 2018._

How did they derive the "millions of dollars" figure? It feels like they're
including everyone who fails their vetting process in their count — that's not
a nice way to treat potential customers.

------
itronitron
if rentals are stolen 1% of the time won't they run out of cameras to rent
fairly quickly?

------
acchow
Can I "legally steal" a car when renting it?

~~~
segmondy
Yes, if you don't return it when it's due and avoid the rental company. They
will file it as stolen and you will be arrested and jailed when found.

------
yitchelle
Voluntary Parting?? Can this be extended to Voluntary Renting with companies
like AirBnB or for hotels renting out their rooms?

------
mclightning
why do I feel like this is some kind of viral article made up in co-operation
with kitsplit?

~~~
romwell
Because the author is not holding a grudge against KitSplit, perhaps?

Because other than that, the opinions here (including mine) are not at all
positive.

------
soared
If you're coming to the comments without reading the article, the company
eventually fully oaid his camera despite how most commentors are acting. The
situation was resolved - I don't know why people are suggesting legal action.

>I want everyone to know that while this has been a really trying situation,
KitSplit has gone to great lengths to help. KitSplit has now fully compensated
me for the full value of the gear that was lost, even though this is beyond
their legal requirements.

~~~
tomerv
Yes, they reimbursed the lender whose gear was stolen - but only after the
case got bad publicity.

~~~
soared
That is my point. People are recommending how the author can recoup his
losses, even though he already has.

------
crankylinuxuser
YAWN.

You mean to tell me, that there's YET ANOTHER "crowd sharing" thing, that ends
up screwing over more 'provider' users in the process?

Color me shocked!

------
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
I take some issue with the $4,500 figure. Searching eBay for recently sold
listings of used gear, a used Canon 5DS R is worth ~$1800, and the lens ~$600.

$2,500 is a long way off from $4,500. Even longer when you consider they
short-changed him about $500, not $2,500.

I'm not defending the service; they should have just offered to replace the
gear or offered a fair amount, but it's worth pointing out what the situation
really is.

~~~
FireBeyond
I guarantee, as someone who just bought a used 24-70, that anything you get
for 600 is going to be in a pretty mediocre condition. You're looking more
like 1300. Glass doesn't lose its value. Similar with the body, there's more
to it than "used" vs "new", quite a bit more.

------
tofof
Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit
lied to his face in an online chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a
transcript of that chat.

I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Any time you're concerned
about something and an agent of a company assures you of a particular outcome,
e.g. "the insurance will cover it", you'd be completely foolish to a) _use
that assurance to make your decision_ while also b) _not keeping a record of
that assurance_. I try to do all my support by chat or email just for the
papertrail.

It's worth noting that, at least in my state (IL), the criminal statute for
consumer fraud explicitly does not require _mens rea_ (criminal intent) -
merely a deceptive statement that leads the company toward financial gain.
What's more, the statement doesn't actually have to be false (just deceptive),
and the employee making it doesn't have to be aware if it's false.

That criterion would obviously be met here, and I would not hesitate to write
the attorney general's consumer fraud department in this situation -- with the
transcript I would have kept, of course. I've done so before for a health
insurance dispute that basically mirrored the events in this story (being
correctly wary, being assured by a corporate drone that things would be
covered, then finding they are not covered).

Obviously criminal prosecutions under that statue are quite rare, but even so
it's amazing how a company's "last offer" quickly becomes "here, let us give
you literally everything you initially asked for" when it's a (free!)
moderator from the AG's office writing on your behalf.

~~~
poulsbohemian
>I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy.

Really? Not even a little?

Guy generously loans out his expensive gear and gets it stolen, but you don't
feel even a little sorry that was the outcome? Rather, you think it was his
fault because he somehow _should have known better_?

I continue to be in awe of HN readers.

~~~
x0x0
As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things
to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business
transaction.

If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord
business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're
in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them,
who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the
negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business.

So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money
from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have
known that's not how the world works.

~~~
rdlecler1
This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in
the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the
intermediary should have covered this.

~~~
x0x0
I -- just spitballing numbers -- can't see how the intermediary can cover
$4.5k in equipment while being paid $14.25/day. And, tbh, that should be
pretty obvious.

~~~
danShumway
Well, they claim that this happens less than one in a thousand rentals[0], so
statistically speaking, a one time fee of $4.50 for the entire rental period
should be about enough to cover their expected risk, right?

I don't buy the combination of, "this is rare so you shouldn't worry about
it", and "it's too risky for us to cover you ourselves."

[0]: [https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-
kitsplit/...](https://intercom.help/kitsplit/trust-and-safety-on-kitsplit/im-
an-owner-how-do-i-know-my-gear-will-be-safe-on-kitsplit-is-it-insured)

~~~
x0x0
No. Even assuming that the $4.50 covers renter peacing out with the equipment,
you still have to cover damage, which is probably far more common. And make a
profit.

~~~
danShumway
Okay. Add an optional $4.50 fee in addition to the current price and make it
clear to lenders that it's not covered in the default situation while
explaining the risk to them.

> _Even assuming_

Is my math wrong? I think that's how expected value works -- risk * cost. And
the figures I'm referencing are directly from the company, so I assume they're
accurate.

This all basically works out to the same point. If the expected cost over the
lifetime of someone's rentals is so large that the company can't cover it,
then it's crazy irresponsible for them to tell consumers not to worry about
it. They can't have their cake and eat it too; either it's a trivial concern
and they should cover it, or it's not a trivial concern and they should take
steps to warn users.

The point of an intermediary is to not get bitten by things unexpectedly; to
introduce confidence to consumers who don't have experience with the subject
they're entering. Part of that is either prominently warning them about
substantial risks that they might not otherwise know about, or pricing your
product so that you can remove those risks for them.

~~~
x0x0
Your math assumes that instances of theft are evenly distributed across the
price of the gear. I'd bet they're not. ie if you're going to commit felony
theft (about $5k in most places), you may as well steal $50k. Thus my guess is
it biases high.

As for the company, my guess is they only have a profitable business if they
don't actually fully insure and they dump a bunch of risk onto the people
supplying the gear to rent. I doubt Adorama or BH are making so much money
that there's a huge business opp _if_ you actually pay for all the risk (as
Adorama and BH do because they rent their own stock.)

