Dive In
is gross negligence which is medical expenses were not
never covered by any insurance covered; nevertheless, the case
company.’ did start a serious debate. it
highlighted how non-specialist
He added that all policy holders insurance companies did not
must fully observe ‘the law, cover beyond training depth,
the rules and regulations laid while specialist scuba insurers
down by the authorities’ and announced they would have
that Dan europe announced paid up, as depth was not an
its decision this year to form issue in this particular case of
its own specialised insurance DCi.
company: international Diving
assurance ltd. the organisation, to get round the confusion with
however, could not supply any regards to trade cover, there are
further details on its new cover many dive centres looking to
and whether it would stipulate entry level qualification depths above insurance cover by independent scuba specialist insurance companies
internationally recognised recreational depth limit recommendations. away from the traditional big company insurers. as diving is so
‘international Diving assurance ltd would adapt the cover and its’ specialised, particularly with the increased diversity in services offered
interpretation to the particular need of divers,’ its spokesman said. ‘this such as technical activities, insurance has to be specialist.
means better control on the quality of service and claim management
procedures.’ Bob archell, managing director of independent scuba insurer Dive
master insurance said: ‘sadly when you have insurance that locks the
‘divers may wish to extend their experience
trade into following only one association’s recommendations you
will get gaps in coverage and possible loop holes for the insurers to
by diving deeper on future expeditions, and deny coverage for technical breach of conditions. if the policy isn’t
although there would be nobody stopping
constructed in the right way, your coverage could be denied because
you were negligent even though that negligence didn’t cause the
them from doing so, however, it may expose
claim.’
a dive centre or instructor to increased
He added that there are cases where association based insurances will
legal risk should they do so without formal
void a policy because of a non causative breach of recommendation,
guidance or training,’
however, he said this was rare in europe as eu courts tend to see this
as unworkable.
interpreting what exactly constitutes exposing clients to what
Dan’s describes as a ‘degree of reasonable danger’ below 18m is not ‘Dive associations have been very careful in separating out a standard
something you are likely to get an answer on outside a specific case. from a recommendation in their training materials. a breach of a
there are many interpretations. training agencies do not have a scuba standard leading to a liability claim may end up voiding your
definitive answer to the problem either, it seems. instructor liability policy, or even your dive centre liability policy
because it would be difficult to explain away such a failure of the duty
‘paDi divers may wish to extend their experience by diving deeper on of care, but a breach of a scuba recommendation that has occurred
future expeditions, and although there would be nobody stopping because of a mistake or error or simply because in your own judgment
them from doing so, however, it may expose a dive centre or instructor the breach was an acceptable risk to take given the circumstances,
to increased legal risk should they do so without formal guidance should not in my view lead to an automatic withdrawal of coverage.
or training,’ richard Howes, paDi training and quality management
consultant told BLUE. ‘therefore, we would always recommend that ‘in the case of the breech of a recommendation like taking and
a student extends their experience under the direct supervision of a experienced and competent open water diver past the 18m
paDi professional, and preferably through a formalised paDi training recommended depth limit should only end up an issue with
Course. each individual business has its own responsibility to manage the insurer if it was directly ‘causative’ of the claim and can be
legal risk, and to require appropriate prerequisites be met prior to demonstrated as the sole cause. otherwise the insurer, if they are a
training. What these prerequisites are would be determined by the responsible insurer should deal with the claim.’
dive centre themselves.’
Without clearly defined boundaries, dive businesses must look
While it is difficult to pinpoint a case in the diving trade where the through every part of the small print and raise questions of insurers if
insurance was not paid out over depth alone, there have been high there is any ambiguity on cover. archell said the most important thing
profile cases in personal dive insurance where divers have been forced for businesses is to make sure the insurance policy covers the legal
to fork out for hefty hyperbaric chamber bills for going too deep. liability as a result of negligence and to look out for conditions where
cover may be denied.
in 2005, diver anthony allen from solihull in the uk was forced to
pay around £40,000 for his chamber treatment following a 49m dive ‘Choosing the right insurance cover could mean the difference
in marsa alam. Despite medical diving doctors saying his case of between remaining in business after a claim or folding your business
decompression illness was down to dehydration, not depth, allen’s and losing all your personal assets,’ he warned.
insurer lloyds tsB failed to pay out. lloyds tsB said the paDi advanced
open Water diver’s cover excluded scuba diving beyond a depth of so, while there are so many uncertainties, the one thing that is
0m. there was no negotiation. extremely clear is that diving operations have to push insurers on
what exactly they are covered for to protect their businesses but not
many commentators immediately said allen had failed to comply short-change on the service to their customers.
with depth recommendations of paDi and it was clear why his
issue 2 august / september 2009 www.cdws.travel 25
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56