Bad news, then good news about DAN equipment insurance

[pt40fathoms]

I am making no such statement and if you're unable to parse the language that's not my issue to resolve. It is yours.

I am making the statement that all indications are that DAN attempted to deny a legitimate equipment insurance claim that appears, under the terms of the policy they sold under their name, was in fact covered at the time of the loss, and only changed their mind and actually conformed to what they sold this customer when public pressure FORCED them to do so.

I have no information that they have done such a thing for any medical claim.

However, I remain troubled that they attempted it for any insurance that they sold.

Your complaint is like saying that if I buy a car and home policy from someone company, and they try to wrongly deny a claim on my car policy, that I should have no concern that a future claim on my homeowners policy will not also be wrongly denied.

That's pure horsehockey.

The issue is one of credibility. Either the company stands on the wording of their policy and the terms of their contracts, and upholds their obligations, or they do not.

There is no middle ground on things like this.

If I offer you three contracts, you bind all three with me, and then I reneg on one of them, you are quite justified in being concerned about whether I will attempt to reneg on the other two!

I've already established my intent; for you to rely on the performance of the other two outstanding contracts would be somewhat north of insane, in my opinion.

Your approach to this is precisely WHY companies do this kind of thing. They believe, and it appears justifyably so, that they will not be held to account across their entire product and service line on the basis of their actions in any specific instance.

This sort of nonsense will only stop when those companies that do something like this are viewed as willing to do it in all future instances, until and unless they take some kind of positive, public action to address the root of the issue.

It is only the force of the marketplace - the risk of their entire customer base evaporating - that makes such a decision unpalatable.

You want to see this kind of thing go away, then you must consider any attempt to abrogate a legitimate contract to reflect on the organization as a whole, and every other contract they have bound, until proven otherwise.

It seems that where we disagree is on one fundamental point. My point being that DAN equipment insurance and medical insurance is separate and apart from each other, and only share a common point of distribution. I see it this way. If I walk into a department store and purchase a DVD Player by one manufacturer and a stereo by another manufacturer, the stereo breaks down and I have a very bad experience getting it fixed. I then make the statement that every item the department store sells has a poor warranty. This type of a blanket statement is completely wrong and is what you seem to be advocating. This is what I take exception to.

Your use of inuendo in the following statement merely reenforced that fact.

"This was a pretty egregious act of slime, IMHO. If its my camera that doesn't get paid for I'd be upset. If its my $20,000 worth of chamber treatments, I'd be quite a bit more than just "upset."

It's the second part of the above statement that brings into question the medical insurance that is provided by DAN. This is what I was refering to as a drive by smear attempt.

 

[Genesis]

You know, Karl, the range of your accusations is bordering on paranoia, if not tipped right over the edge, too sweeping to be credible. Just for the record, do you believe there is any company or individual on the supply side of diving who's not "sliming" us?

JohnF

Certainly.

I've done business with several stand-up operations in dive-related areas just in the last year.

Abyss and Oxycheq come to mind immediately. So does "The Curly One" here(Airetex) who sold me my compressor, and Clark Yacht Compressors, who sold me my hyperfilter stack. I've also had no trouble with Diver's Supply or Diver's Discount, and I bought a very nice DUI drysuit from Diver's Den in Dothan, AL, just a couple of months ago. I'd do business with all of these places again, and have continuing business relationships with some of them (notably Airetex; I can buy my filter cartridges elsewhere, but Bruce is a good guy and I don't mind giving him the business for them.) I've even (gasp!) bought product from LP and been perfectly happy with them.

I could go on, but its not necessary; the point stands.

I judge firms by their actions and clear intent at the time they take them. Some firms act in ways that make me confident that they will stand behind their commitments and products, and others act in ways that make me believe they will endeavor to find every possible loophole to screw me, or even go beyond that and simply refuse to honor their commitments in a bald-faced fashion.

An attempt to just simply refuse to honor an existing contract is one of the worst offenses a business can commit, irrespective of what line of work they are in, because it literally rips their credibility as a firm out at the roots, stomps it into the ground, and then burns the remains to smoldering ash at the stake.

 

[Genesis]

It seems that where we disagree is on one fundamental point. My point being that DAN equipment insurance and medical insurance is separate and apart from each other, and only share a common point of distribution. I see it this way. If I walk into a department store and purchase a DVD Player by one manufacturer and a stereo by another manufacturer, the stereo breaks down and I have a very bad experience getting it fixed. I then make the statement that every item the department store sells has a poor warranty. This type of a blanket statement is completely wrong and is what you seem to be advocating. This is what I take exception to.

Ah, but you'd be perfectly within your rights to hold the department store responsible. Indeed, it was their decision (not yours) to represent that brand, stock the product, and sell it to you.

If that stereo breaks down, the department store that made the profit from the sale is the one you should go to for recourse. After all, absent their representations to you on this stereo, you wouldn't have bought it there - and probably wouldn't have bought that brand, make and model!

They are responsible for seeing that you are satisfied, because if you're not, its very unlikely that you will return to buy more - of anything - from them.

Indeed, I often purchase items at retail from various stores that I have reason to believe will stand behind the product and take care of me if there is a problem, even though I have other alternatives, some of which may be cheaper. For instance, I bought a Camcorder from Sears not all that long ago precisely because during the warranty I can obtain service on it from them, rather than sending it back to Sony at God-Knows-Where, even though I might save a few bucks buying it online through one of the "mail order places." Their record, from my experience with various consumer products, has been positive. As yet another example, they distribute the "Duet" front-load washers - you can get them at Lowes, or you can buy them at Sears. But them at Sears and if there's a problem THEIR people come out and fix it. Buy it at Lowes, and, well, I don't know who comes out and fixes them.

I didn't say that everything that a given store has a crappy warranty.

In the case at the bar, DAN decided to represent, sell, and profit from the sale of these policies. They therefore held them out as their own, with their "brand" on them. Indeed, they marketed them solely as "theirs" - they're not sold as "Fireman's Fund equipment insurance", they're sold as "DAN equipment insurance."

The responsibility here is clearly theirs, and the brush that paints this issue justifyably impacts everything else they do that is insurance-related.

I said that DAN's credibility in terms of it being believed that they will stand behind their insurance policies has, in my opinion, been justifyably damaged - and quite severely - by this incident. I further believe that it is, in my opinion, not only perfectly reasonable to hold them to account over this, but that doing so is the only means by which consumers EVER put a stop to this kind of corporate behavior.

 

[pterantula]

I purchased H2OInsurance right before my trip in June. I read the provisions completely before signing on to be bound by those terms, and I do recall seeing "swept off a boat" & similar not being covered. While this is annoying, I bought the coverage because it did cover flooding of the cameras, and other damage to diving equipment or theft (I have all my receipts, for everything).
I tend to think the insurance industry in general is legalized organized extortion, but at the same time it can provide some small peace of mind - case in point is DAN diving insurance, which if used could cover expenses in the hundreds of thousands for the equivalent of about 30 cents/day....

(As an ASCAP member, I also insured all my musical instruments and computers, so if there's a fire or earthquake while I'm away, I feel a little better...).

 

[Cacia]

I tend to think the insurance industry in general is legalized organized extortion

more and more too.....

Just don't admit that it got swept overboard...a guy from "brand X" was telling me the ins and outs of insurance at DIMA, "mysterious dissapearances" and dropping a flooded housing over a wall and watching it mysteriously disapear...

I have their insurance on about 5K of camera stuff, because I do not want to complicate my homeowner's policy.

 

[Thalassamania]

Dan's in hot water, they should have been years ago. IMHO, Bennett has been abusing his position since the very begining. Three cheers for Michael Emmerman, Mike Lang and Glen Egstrom!

 

[Web Monkey]

DAN's equipment insurance is independent of DAN...I'd have no issue what so ever of keeping my diving insurance. I don't own equipment that is terribly expensive to replace (yet) so I've yet to look into this much more than that.

FWIW, I have all my SCUBA equipment insured with my homeowners policy for $40 or $50 as "Scheduled Property". Cheaper than DAN and better coverage.

Terry

 

[Cacia]

well, it is more complicated than the dollar amount. Some believe that in places where hurricane coverage is tenative, we don't want to jeopardize our rates with even small claims. I am not sure what the "right" answer is...even though my insurance cost would be less with a homeowner's rider, I opted to keep it seperate.

 

[Thalassamania]

So you think insurance and DAN are separate?

Teasers:

In 1993, Bennett consulted Atlanta lawyers who specialized in "offshore captives," Bennett and Covington (DAN corporate counsel), planned a for-profit subsidiary to handle DAN's insurance. On advice from Bennett and Covington, the DAN board approved the new corporation and set it up in the Cayman Islands, lessening the tax burden and increasing potential profits. They called it Accident and General Insurance, named Bennett its president and put Covington on its board.

Bennett and Covington both sat on its board of directors, and received generous salaries of up to $66,000 for doing so, while, in his official capacity as corporate counsel, the Durham attorney continued to advise the DAN board on policy decisions, including the management of its subsidiary, from which he also collected legal fees.

Bennett’s relationship with Covington, whom they eventually discovered was also Bennett's partner in other profit-making ventures outside of DAN and AGI, including a consulting business and a company that sold traveler's insurance.

Read the entire story

 

[Cacia]

well, I don't think a claim to Dan for my camera has any chance of raising my my homeowner's premiums.

But...I am very interested in your take on DAN, so i will read it! I just dropped the dive insurance because it seems that I am already covered....
If you are saying they have ethical issues...I buy that. haven't seen you deliver bum scoop yet.