VST_Man 1 Posted December 14, 2006 Has anyone dealt with this "new" Insurance requirement yet? I just got a contract for a 32 camera ssytem in a new Holiday Inn under construction and one of the requirements was to provide off-site video recording. Now I know your asking yourself, "how did I get the contract if I'm asking about this"......the requirement is not in the contract, it is a offer by the Insurance Company to reduce the Insurance payments by x% if off-site video recording is used. My client wants me to do this. Yes I can do this and yes I've done it before..only not via a Insurance requirement. I'm meeting with the insurance provider to get the facts as the client is only telling me what he heard......the discount part. A 32 camera system will need a huge path inorder to complete. I'm pretty sure that the cost for bandwidth is going to make the % saved look small, but the bandwidth is a write off aanyway so the decision is the clients. Any insite from those who have done this is appreciated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSG 0 Posted December 15, 2006 Haven't heard of that before. How long do they want the off-site archive stored for? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted December 15, 2006 no idea, but where are you going to monitor/store the video, do you have a CMS? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VST_Man 1 Posted December 15, 2006 I have no info yet but I will do what is required if paid to. My guess is that the insurance company might have that answer since they are offering it up? My recommendation to my client right now is to wait til all the cards on on the table.........and then if we can get away with it I will recommend having only a few camera's do the off-site vice all. ie. have the Server room, doors, ect. routed off-site. I'm not to sure abput what my client stated and what I know.......seems a bit out there for an insurance company to require a off-site video system without actually costing out that cost against any savings for the owners....................the ratio has to be way to far out there for the insurance company to cut the price and save the client money. I think they are concerned that anyone from the inside can comit the crime and kill the video to cover up? But if they know off site is being used all they have to do is pull the plug................ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSG 0 Posted December 15, 2006 Doesn't really make sense cause if it's an inside job they can just as easy shut off the router, dvr, power, cut cam wires, paper bag on the cam, paint gun,, off-site storage wouldn't make a difference. More effective would be to place the DVR in lockbox or safe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rory 0 Posted December 15, 2006 i would sell ofsite recording more for the fire aspect .. such as arsen .. yes they can disable the main power box and paint the cameras, but if they were that type of criminal they'd probably just use a rocket launcher to blow the place up, instead of the physical work of gasoline and matches .. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
iSpyVision 0 Posted December 16, 2006 All I see here is a huge LIABILITY. If you host it, They get robbed or someone gets shot, you don't have the shot they need or want due to only having a few cams hooked up on your remote video storage, who do you think everyone is going to come after...YOU! The only reason his insurance company is giving him a break is because now all of there liability is now resting with you. Make sure YOU are insured for this as well. My experience with it is most insurance companies won't cover you especially if his insurance wants video coverage asumming all 32 cams are being recorded off site. Better to farm it out to a monitoring company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thomas in BP 0 Posted December 18, 2006 With 32 cameras, quite a bit of bandwidth is required in order to store video off-site in a quality/bit rate that is worth anything. The risk that I see is that your are forced to reduce the recording bitrate to fit the bandwidth rather than choosing the much more expensive option to increase the bandwidt to fit the necessary bitrate. If the bit rate is too low for images to document anything else than that somebody walked in front of the cameras, then there is the risk that the insurance policy has small print saying that coverage is void if no CCTV system is in place or if recordings are of inadequate quality. This is a risk, but I am not saying that the insurance company has evil intent. The thing is just that I have heard far more stories about insurance companies doing everything they can to avoid paying than I have heard stories about insurance companies honoring legitimate claims without resorting to any tricks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galen 0 Posted December 27, 2006 I would ask around at other motels that you know are not necessarily chain owned. You should get some good info there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
