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

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."