YD Scuba Diving Forums banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just a word of warning to divers who use Westfield Dive insurance. Other Dive insurers are probably the same.
Diving from a liveaboard I lost my camera on a dive, don’t know how because it was clipped to my BCD.
Anyway, turns out my camera and ANY diving equipment isn’t covered while in use. ie on a dive, whether taking a picture or not. So although the schedule states cover for cameras up to £300, the policy conveniently excludes most possibilties of a claim.
My fault for not reading the the policy cover to cover and understanding that carrying a camera counts as using it.
 

·
Long in tooth, grey in hair but still screwing up
Joined
·
66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
Just a word of warning to divers who use Westfield Dive insurance. Other Dive insurers are probably the same.
Diving from a liveaboard I lost my camera on a dive, don’t know how because it was clipped to my BCD.
Anyway, turns out my camera and ANY diving equipment isn’t covered while in use. ie on a dive, whether taking a picture or not. So although the schedule states cover for cameras up to £300, the policy conveniently excludes most possibilties of a claim.
My fault for not reading the the policy cover to cover and understanding that carrying a camera counts as using it.
Bad luck. But not so with dive-master:

DiveMaster said:
The insured equipment as specified on your policy SCHEDULE is covered in a PLACE OF
STORAGE, during SUB AQUA ACTIVITIES and in TRANSIT to and from WHILST WITH
THE INSURED.
Regards
Matt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
Hmm. That would annoy me quite a lot. I know it's important to read the policy etc, but to me it's natural to assume that insurance covers your kit while actually in use. Maybe I'm naive.
Last year I took out an annual policy with Scuba Travel who have been pretty good.
It's basically a glorified travel insurance but with specific parts for dive equipment (up to 2.5k or more if you pay extra) and search and recovery. I found it pretty reasonably priced and they were able to extend the maximum trip duration for my DM trip last summer. All in all quite good. And most importantly they've paid out on two occasions when I've lost a torch, mask and Inon mount base, despite my claims being pretty blonde ('err I had it in the morning, and by the afternoon I didn't have it any more').
More info here:
Scuba Diving Travel Insurance | Dive Insurance

Hope that helps for next time and thanks for the heads up.

Sarah
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Thanks Sarah

I thought I had "glorified Travel insurance" with bits relating to dive equipment, turns out it wasnt glorious at all.

I'll check more carefully next time but they'll still find a way not to pay.
 

·
www.eastcornwalldivers.co .uk
Joined
·
220 Posts
That's odd, I've been looking at Westfields for kit insurance for some time and thought their policies looked pretty comprehensive. This page seems to suggest it would be covered - did you have something different specified on your policy?

http://www.divinginsuranceuk.com/sportdiver.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
399 Posts
Top Tip - when something goes wrong, read your full policy wording before making your claim.

For example a flooded camera that flooded whilst diving was not covered on a policy that "someone I knew" took out. However, as it turns out the camera did not in fact flood whilst diving the canyon at Dahab, it in fact fell out of a pocket whilst walking along a jetty, and low and behold it was covered by the insurance.

Not that I would condone this type of behaviour ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,259 Posts
I lost some kit that was insured with Westfield, phoned, filled out the form and collected a cheque 3 weeks later with no effort at all - wasn't a camera though.
Re-reading this thread I think there is some confusion between holiday travel insurance and dive kit insurance - certainly the former isn't typically going to cover the types of problems mentioned in this thread, especially when the provider offers a more specific kit policy.

Regards
Matt.
 

·
Sort of member - perhaps, possibly, maybe
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
As a general rule:

Why is it that insurance companies and the Taxation Office are treated as if they deserve to be cheated?

So let's ignore the Taxation Office and talk insurance companies. They're there to offset the financial hardship which comes with sudden (not necessarily by whatever means) loss of something-or-another. What they are not there for is every Tom, Dick or Harry who sees them as a potential saviour in some loss making situation. Trust me, Insurance Loss Assessors have forgotten more about claims procedures than any of us know and if you think you got away with one (such as camera falling out of pocket) it's simply because the assessors decided that it was not worth pursuing the matter.

Get real! Every time you make a claim, up go the premiums for everyone, including your own.

Written, bias duly acknowledged, by a retired ex-insurance guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,557 Posts
Hardly 'beware' is it? I used Westfield for years and knew exactly what the policy was, because reading the inclusions and exclusions is what people do when they pay money for insurance, isn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
That's true, of course.
But it's actually quite hard to find a company who is willing to cover that sort of things like camera floods, even if you're prepared to pay a hefty premium for it.
Also, what's the difference between the camera falling out of a pocket on a jetty and getting flooded while on a dive - in both cases the camera gets wet and needs replacing due to an accident. Either could be down to carelessness on the part of the claimer or could be complete chance, the flooding on a dive could even be manufacturing fault. It's not as if the person thought 'oh I'd like a new camera I'll dunk mine in the bath and claim for a new one' - that's a totally different story.
I'm not trying to be provocative, I just genuinely don't understand the reason behind the companies covering certain things and not others. Maybe they deem it more likely that a camera will be flooded on a dive - maybe that's why. I'm really not sure, but in my mind, you pay your premium to cover you for the unforeseen on your hols, or at home. I'm not saying people shouldn't take responsibility for their actions - of course they should but perhaps there are some oddities about insurance policies these days.

S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,162 Posts
Re-reading this thread I think there is some confusion between holiday travel insurance and dive kit insurance - certainly the former isn't typically going to cover the types of problems mentioned in this thread, especially when the provider offers a more specific kit policy.

Regards
Matt.
That's a good spot. I've got Annual Holiday insurance AND separate Kit Insurance which is why I had no problem making a claim with Westfield.

From memory none of the standard holiday insurance policies I ever had have covered belongings which were in my possession when damaged or lost, they only cover belongings which are lost or damaged by third parties i.e. baggage handlers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 · (Edited)
I agree with most of the above. I obviousley havent done enough research when buying my insurance.
And yes I bought travel insurance not equipment insurance because I belived it covered - to an extent equipment as well as travel. Surely thats the point of it.
I, like a fool, read, and was told over the phone, all the things that were covered which included on the schedule, which I havent got in front of me right now, Camera equipment up to £300.
The problem is that, like a fool, I didnt read the policy document where it excludes "in use"
The prurpose of the original post is to warn people like me that take this policy without reading the book that equipment isnt covered while in use.
Theres no harm in that is there?
I'm sure i'm not the only person never to have read a policy document. It's what you should do, the same as that liablitity waiver whenever you dive but not many people read that either.
 

·
Sort of member - perhaps, possibly, maybe
Joined
·
3,276 Posts
Regarding liability waiver, if you sign something you are intrinsically acknowledging that you've read it - if you didn't, more fool you.

That also applies to insurance policies - you sign a document (a proposal) and explain all sorts of things in that proposal - did you properly read it? Because the policy which stems from that proposal is entirely based on it. Did you know that if your household insurance cover is worth, say, a total of 100K but when a claim happens the assessor considers the worth to be 200K, the assessor will deem that you "self insured" for half the cover and, therefore, your claim will be met for just half the amount for which it is assessed? Then, just like the average tradesman (say) the estimate may be for a ridiculous amount (the tradesman doesn't really want the job). Equally, the insurance company may ask for ridiculous premiums in order to cover every eventuality (comprehensive cover in insurance-speak) because they don't really want the risk - or they restrict cover to those things they feel they can handle. The use of cameras underwater is one of those things that insurance companies, as a generality, still don't really want to know about, mostly because it's still a pretty unknown risk factor and so the statisticians (the actuaries) are still out to lunch.

I totally self-insure my camera system, and I live with it if it goes pear-shaped. Thus far, touch wood, I think I'm (barely) in front on the ledger but that might change tomorrow.

Insurance companies are not benevolent societies. Like any other company they exist to make profits, not least for their policyholders because if their claim rate rises, so do their premiums with the result that, eventually, they might price themselves out of the market, an entirely undesirable event whichever way you look at it.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top