--- title: "A Maltese Chewed Up an X100. Your Home Policy Won't Pay, but a Camera Floater Might." description: "A dog with separation anxiety tore apart a working Fujifilm X100, and Fuji says it can't fix it. We read the policy forms: some exclude your own pet by name, some never mention animals at all, and you can't tell which you have without looking." date: "2026-11-03" author: "GetCameraGuard Team" category: "coverage-gaps" related: - homeowners-insurance-water-damage-camera-exclusion - usaa-valuable-personal-property-camera-gear - allstate-scheduled-personal-property-camera-coverage - canon-cps-repair-quote-adjuster-approval image: "/images/small-white-dog-chewing-on-carpet.jpg" imageAlt: "A small white dog lying on a shaggy carpet with its eyes half closed, gnawing happily on a long chew" --- In a bout of separation anxiety, a Maltese named Willy found his owner's original Fujifilm X100 and went to work on it. u/LordRudsmore [posted the photos to r/fujifilm](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/my_dog_ate_my_x100/), and they drew 325 upvotes and more than a hundred comments, most of them jokes about patina. The top plate is scored with tooth marks, the rubber viewfinder surround is ripped open, and the leatherette around the rear dial has been torn away in patches. The camera still works. Buried in the jokes is the entire insurance discussion, which takes four words. A commenter [asked](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s3000vce0ci/) "Home insurance?" and the owner [answered](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s303u077io0/) "Too old." That answer may be true of this camera, but on the policy forms we read, age is not the obstacle. The dog is. **The short version:** - **A standard home policy doesn't pay on contents.** Allstate's AP4687 lists 18 covered causes of loss, and a pet is not one. - **Upgrading contents to open perils doesn't fix it.** ISO's HO 00 15 endorsement excludes "Animals owned or kept by an 'insured.'" - **Camera floaters are different.** ISO's PM 00 13, Travelers' HA-61-B and USAA's VPP contain no animal exclusion. - **UK photo policies can name it outright.** A Hiscox-underwritten booklet excludes damage from a "domestic pet." - **Fuji's repair list shows the original X100 ending in June 2019**, so any fix is independent or DIY. ## Does Home Insurance Cover a Camera Your Dog Chewed? Almost certainly not, and the forms get there by two different routes. [West Bend's consumer guidance](https://www.thesilverlining.com/westbendcares/blog/insurance-coverage-for-damage-caused-by-pets) gives the logic in one line: "Because your pet lives with you, it's under your control and you're responsible for its behavior and the damage it causes." The first route is silence. A standard home policy insures your belongings against a list of named events, and anything off the list is simply not covered. [Allstate's form AP4687](https://delivery.contenthub.allstate.com/api/public/content/be5abf8d4f9643bc98509769df672424?v=27439f51) covers "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" to contents from 18 causes, including fire, windstorm, vehicles, vandalism and theft. Nothing on the list describes a Maltese. We wrote about [the same mechanism for a dropped lens](/blog/allstate-scheduled-personal-property-camera-coverage). Vandalism sounds tempting until you remember the vandal lives with you and has no concept of malice. The second route is the one that catches careful people. Many homeowners pay extra to switch contents from named perils to open perils, and reasonably assume that solves the problem. ISO's [Special Personal Property endorsement, HO 00 15](https://www.independentagent.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/HO00150491.pdf), does broaden coverage to "risk of direct loss," and then lists what it takes back: > (g) Birds, vermin, rodents, or insects; or (h) Animals owned or kept by an 'insured.' That wording is in the 1991 edition, and the same line survives in [a later ISO-style version posted by AAA's Auto Club](https://services.autoclubmo.aaa.com/InsuranceAux/Forms/AR/HomeOwners/CO_00_15_09_03.pdf). Your own pet is carved out by name, whether the damage is to a sofa or a Summilux. ## Why Is a Camera Floater a Different Question? Because a floater is its own insuring agreement with its own, much shorter exclusion list, and on the three we could read, animals are not on it. | Form | What it says about animals | A chewed camera | |---|---|---| | Allstate AP4687, contents | Named perils; a pet is not among the 18 | Not covered | | ISO HO 00 15, open-perils contents | "Animals owned or kept by an 'insured'" | Excluded by name | | ISO PM 00 13, cameras form | Only "Insects or vermin" | No pet exclusion | | Travelers HA-61-B (06-95) | Nothing | No pet exclusion | | USAA VPPFCSA (01-26) | Nothing | No pet exclusion | | [Ripe/Hiscox photography booklet](https://files.ripeinsurance.co.uk/Photography/2026/PHT_15815_InsuranceBooklet_01_04_26.pdf) (UK) | "domestic pet" | Excluded by name | | [County Insurance photo summary](https://www.eos-magazine.com/insurance/files/Photo-IPID-2.pdf) (UK) | "insects, vermin, pets" | Excluded by name | ISO's [cameras form, as analyzed by FC&S](https://www.propertycasualty360.com/fcs/2015/04/07/cameras-form/), insures "against risk of direct physical loss" and excludes wear and tear, deterioration, inherent vice, and insects or vermin. The analysis states the principle directly: > This is an open perils form, so only what is specifically excluded is not covered. [Travelers' Valuable Items Plus endorsement](https://milehighinsurancebrokers.com/agent_portal/forms/Travelers%20Valuable%20Items.pdf) reads the same way, in the 1995 edition a broker has posted. It insures cameras against "all risks of direct physical loss" and then states that "SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS DO NOT APPLY TO COVERAGE G," which switches off the base policy's list. [USAA's filed contract](https://static.usaa.com/content/dam/digital/documents/pdf/pc/pc-vpp-contract-eusa.pdf) never uses the words animal, pet, insect or vermin at all. USAA's two closest exclusions don't reach the dog either. Intentional damage has to be an act committed "by or at the direction of any insured," and a Maltese is not an insured. Neglect means failing to save the property "at and after the time of loss," so it addresses what you do once the damage has happened, not where you left the camera that morning. Now the caveats, because a missing exclusion is not a promise of payment. Your edition may differ from the one we read, and the Travelers form in particular is decades old. "Vermin" ordinarily means pests rather than a household pet, but we did not find a court ruling or a reported claim testing this on a chewed camera. Wear-and-tear language could also become an argument if a dog worked on the same body for months rather than one bad afternoon. And we could not find published pet wording from the camera-specific US programs: [Full Frame's exclusions page](https://www.fullframeinsurance.com/exclusions) doesn't mention animals either way and sends you to the policy itself. So ask, and get the answer in writing. ## Does a Working Camera With Chew Marks Count as a Loss? Often that is the second fight, because several contracts treat cosmetic damage separately from functional damage. The HO 00 15 list above also excludes "Wear and tear, marring, deterioration." The UK booklet [underwritten by Hiscox and sold through Ripe](https://files.ripeinsurance.co.uk/Photography/2026/PHT_15815_InsuranceBooklet_01_04_26.pdf) goes further, excluding "Marring, scratching, denting, changes in colour or finish, corrosion or any cosmetic change." Store plans do it too: [Nikon Care excludes cosmetic damage](/blog/store-protection-plan-vs-real-camera-insurance). USAA is worth a close look here, because its "marring, or scratching" exclusion sits under the class for guns and doesn't appear for cameras. Its settlement clause offers repair "to the condition it was in just before the loss," which is a better sentence for a chewed body than most. This camera has a second argument available. The owner [wrote that they had pushed the remains of the rubber surround back in](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/my_dog_ate_my_x100/) "to protect the camera innards." A torn viewfinder opening is a path for dust and moisture, which makes it more than a looks problem. Tooth marks in the top plate are harder to argue. ## Was "Too Old" Actually the Problem? On value, quite possibly yes, and that is a different thing from being uninsurable. None of the forms above excludes a camera for its age. What age does is shrink the claim until the deductible swallows it. The original X100 launched in 2011 and trades cheaply when it trades at all. Seller-reported listings on FM Forums include [one marked sold at $450 with extras in late 2022](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1787773/), [a well-used body at $269](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1748461/), and [one asking $575 in 2024](https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1865904/0). Against those numbers, a home policy deductible of $500 or $1,000 ends the conversation even if coverage existed. And that was before Willy. One commenter [priced the camera as it stands now](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s31x5eez6f5/): > It's your camera forever now. Ain't no way anyone is buying that for more than $20. A floater changes the math only if you scheduled the camera beforehand. USAA advertises no deductible and a $2 a month minimum premium, though [you have to be eligible to join](/blog/usaa-valuable-personal-property-camera-gear). For a body worth a few hundred dollars that is a close call, and a much easier one for a modern X100VI, where [third-party used prices on Amazon](https://camelcamelcamel.com/product/B0FC8N95DC) sat near $2,000 this summer and the same dog does the same damage. The owner is in Spain, and we have not read their contract. European cover varies, and some of it is worth checking. [Insurance Times reported in 2022](https://insurancetimes.co.uk/news/around-800-uk-accidental-damage-claims-per-year-are-dog-related-aviva/1440545.article), citing Aviva, that dogs account for around 800 UK accidental damage claims a year, at about £1,110 each, while the same piece notes that home policies usually exclude pet-related damage. Accidental damage add-ons are where the answer differs, so read yours rather than assuming. ## What Happens When the Manufacturer Can't Repair It? Fuji's answer is final for this model, but it may not end the repair or the claim. The owner [edited the post](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/my_dog_ate_my_x100/) after hearing from Fuji Repair Services for Spain and Portugal: "they no longer have spares or equipment to test and repair the original X100." That matches [FujiRumors' 2024 report of Fuji's discontinued-repair list](https://www.fujirumors.com/?p=127198), which shows the X100 ending in June 2019, followed by the X100S in 2020, the X100T in 2022 and the X100F in March 2024. For a claim, this can matter a lot. USAA's contract has a clause built for it: > We will pay you the scheduled limit of liability if we determine that it is not possible or feasible to replace, repair or restore the property. Note who does the determining. An adjuster can reasonably reply that an independent shop could do the work, and the thread supplies the evidence. One commenter [said Fujifilm UK turned away their X100S](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s35la296erp/), and an independent store then ordered the parts and fixed it: > When Fuji say they no longer have the parts what they mean is they won't do the repair themselves That is one owner's experience and one owner's reading of Fuji's motives, which we can't verify. The practical advice stands anyway. They [named the shop as Sendean Cameras in London](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s3ymzrmzwht/) and suggested taking a broken donor X100 along to be stripped for parts. The ISO form is less generous than USAA's on the number itself. Per FC&S, the scheduled value "is not an agreed upon amount," and the value is set at the time of loss. If your old camera is worth more to you than to the market, that is what [agreed value coverage](/blog/vintage-film-camera-agreed-value-insurance) exists for. ## What If It Wasn't Your Dog? Then the exclusion may not apply, and someone else's liability coverage may come into it. The HO 00 15 wording reaches animals "owned or kept by" an insured, so a visiting dog you aren't responsible for falls outside those words, while a dog you are minding for a friend for the weekend probably falls inside "kept." West Bend notes the other direction too: if a pet damages someone else's belongings, "you have liability insurance coverage which provides coverage for damages to other people's property." So a friend's dog that chews your camera at their house may be a conversation with their insurer. Your dog chewing a borrowed lens is murkier, because [gear in your care raises its own questions](/blog/lending-camera-gear-to-a-friend-insurance-coverage), and that's worth a call to your agent before assuming either way. The owner has some experience on this front, having [mentioned an earlier incident](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s34op4951s0/) in which a different camera was "tossed by the mailman straight into my dog." ## What to Do if Your Dog Gets to Your Camera Check the dog first, then preserve the evidence before you repair anything. In order: - **Account for every piece.** One commenter [made the point most of the thread missed](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s37y3yp5vsx/), that swallowed parts can mean a blockage and a vet bill on top of the camera. If pieces are missing, call a vet. The owner checked: "I've accounted for all the missing pieces; Willy is fine." - **Photograph everything and keep the torn parts.** Do it before you glue or tape anything. Our post on [duties after a loss](/blog/damaged-gear-salvage-duties-after-loss) explains why selling or binning the damaged item can cost you the claim. - **Search your policy for three words: animal, pet, domestic.** Then find the marring or cosmetic clause. Ten minutes with the PDF tells you more than a thread will. - **Call before any repair, if you have a floater.** Use plain words: "My dog damaged a scheduled camera. Is that a covered cause of loss?" Our [step-by-step claims guide](/blog/camera-insurance-claims-process-step-by-step) covers the order, and a [repair authorized too early](/blog/canon-cps-repair-quote-adjuster-approval) can void reimbursement. - **Get the manufacturer's refusal in writing.** A message like the one from Fuji's repair service is exactly what supports a "not possible or feasible" argument. - **Price the cheap fix honestly.** The owner settled on [an X100F eyecup](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s386sh6u5hd/) that could cover the damaged rubber, plus a half case for the rest. For a working camera worth a few hundred dollars, that is probably the right call whatever the policy says. Then move the camera. As [one commenter put it](https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1xmud9g/comment/19s30rjfzazib/), cameras "smell a lot like you and are some of the first things dogs tend to chew." A closed bag on a high shelf costs nothing and doesn't depend on anyone's exclusion list. If you are shopping for coverage and own something with teeth, ask the pet question before you buy. Our [comparison table](/#compare) lays out what each policy covers, and our [methodology](/methodology) explains how we read the forms behind it.