DAN Dive insurance

[vladimir]

This seems unlikely, I'm pretty sure any major tax agency has methods to ensure compensation is "reasonable". I know there are some questionable non-profits, but I don't think a scam is as easy as you make it sound.

Well, it might not have been easy, but there was definitely a scam along the lines of what peterbj7 suggests. Here's an article:

After 22 years at the helm of the Durham-based Divers Alert Network, Peter Bennett is being forced out. Board members of the $14 million nonprofit say that in addition to helping divers, DAN's leader and his allies also were helping themselves.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:18878

 

[peterbj7]

This seems unlikely, I'm pretty sure any major tax agency has methods to ensure compensation is "reasonable". I know there are some questionable non-profits, but I don't think a scam is as easy as you make it sound.

I don't know how common it is, but I can assure you it can and does happen. As a practising accountant I've even had to plan such arrangements for clients myself. There is no such thing as "reasonable compensation" in law - just look at what bankers have been paying themselves out of other people's money.

 

[DandyDon]

IMO, every diver should be a member of DAN and should have at least their middle or "Master" insurance plan. It's an excellent organization that has served the sport and its members well, and the insurance is great.

The smallest plan is junk compared to the middle one for only a $10/year difference. Look at the comparitive differences. Won't take a whole minute. Get the middle plan or top.

No, it is not St.DAN. The organization has had problems with greed among some controlling interests in the past, and may not be totally clear of all that - but it's still a great organization over all.

Great magazine too!​

Yes - local diving or around the world. Don't dive without DAN Insurance. $57 USD can save you tens of thousands of dollars as well as yo rlife. DAN will hook you up with the right medical care anywhere instead of pot-luck recommendations from locals or the phone book.

$57? Membership is $35/yr + Basic plan is $25 = $60/yr minimum, but spend at least $70 for the Master if not more for the Preferred. I think membership fees did go up from $29 to $35, but not sure where you got that $57?

There are family discounts I think. Too bad that Peter's customer spent so much money to get his family to Belize for a dive vacation but failed to get the discount plan.

You can sign up online easily. I have seen people do so after witnessing an ambulance pick up a diver. :shocked2:

As far as I can see, the coverage offered by DAN Asia Pacific is substantially the same as that of DAN in the United States. The only differences I can see in a cursory inspection are differences in the death benefits and Australian benefits are denominated in Aussie Dollars as opposed to US Dollars. What did I miss?

If I understand it correctly, since I am a member in the US, my coverages is the same no matter where, even tho the local DAN may handle my needs - the coverage is the same. Only differences would arise if I joined in Australia or any other DAN.

What they are using profits in their insurance division (a separate corporation) for is to enrich the shareholders. Nothing wrong with that, but they should, in my opinion, be a little bit more transparent about it. A lot of people have the same misapprehension that you do--that excess premium income goes to the non-profit DAN. That is not the case, although the for-profit DAN does make some contribution to the non-profit.

Correct, it's not St.DAN, but it's still the best.

 

[vladimir]

I don't know how common it is, but I can assure you it can and does happen. As a practising accountant I've even had to plan such arrangements for clients myself. There is no such thing as "reasonable compensation" in law - just look at what bankers have been paying themselves out of other people's money.

Dick Grasso, the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, was sued by Elliot Spitzer (between trysts), then NY State Attorney General, after being paid $[-]140[/-]185 million in compensation for leading the non-profit. The basis for the lawsuit was, indeed, unreasonable compensation for a non-profit. So the concept exists, although appeals judges didn't think too highly of this particular application.

 

[peterbj7]

Oh absolutely, a lawyer might try to persuade a court that an action was unreasonable. What the court decides is not however what is "reasonable" in common parlance, but what was allowed for by the legislators and/or parties to the contract. A court cannot simply change or create law where it sees a deficiency. That's the job of Parliament (in the UK) and whatever the generic word for both Houses is in the USA. There of course you have the added complication of State-level courts and lawmakers. But the general principle that courts are there to interpret law, not create it, still prevail.

What happened in the NYSE case?

 

[vladimir]

If I understand it correctly, since I am a member in the US, my coverages is the same no matter where, even tho the local DAN may handle my needs - the coverage is the same. Only differences would arise if I joined in Australia or any other DAN.

You are correct Don. If you lived in Australia, say, you would not be eligible for the US coverage.

Correct, it's not St.DAN, but it's still the best.

I agree Don. Much of the bad stuff is well in its past. I just wish they'd be more transparent about where profits from DAN Services, Inc., the for-profit insurance entity, go. If 10% go to DAN, that's okay. If 100% go to DAN, that's great. I am not one to begrudge a business a profit, I just like to be dealt with honestly.

 

[vladimir]

Oh absolutely, a lawyer might try to persuade a court that an action was unreasonable. What the court decides is not however what is "reasonable" in common parlance, but what was allowed for by the legislators and/or parties to the contract. A court cannot simply change or create law where it sees a deficiency. That's the job of Parliament (in the UK) and whatever the generic word for both Houses is in the USA. There of course you have the added complication of State-level courts and lawmakers. But the general principle that courts are there to interpret law, not create it, still prevail.

What happened in the NYSE case?

The case was all but thrown out on appeal and pretty much abandoned by the new attorney general. NY State has a law that compensation at non-profits must be "reasonable" and "commensurate with services provided." Grasso was accused of violating that and several other statutes, deceiving the directors, concealing his compensation, etc. The case suffered from the lack of an injured party, in my opinion, and when Spitzer was found in bed with a call-girl, the political winds shifted in Grasso's favor. The fact that the NYSE is it's own regulator complicated the case further.

 

[openmindOW]

What they are using profits in their insurance division (a separate corporation) for is to enrich the shareholders. Nothing wrong with that, but they should, in my opinion, be a little bit more transparent about it. A lot of people have the same misapprehension that you do--that excess premium income goes to the non-profit DAN. That is not the case, although the for-profit DAN does make some contribution to the non-profit.

Thank you. I was under that impression.

As for the Peter Bennett controversy, it sounds like the problem there was with Peter Bennett himself. The news articles suggest that DAN's Board fired Bennett for what the Board considered inappropriate conduct by Bennett.

 

[vladimir]

Yeah, I did not intend to impugn DAN. The Bennett stuff is ancient history by now. I think most divers should have DAN insurance, and I have the preferred plan myself.

 

[peterbj7]

You can get bad apples in any organisation, and whilst it doesn't reflect well on the organisation that internal control was so poor as to permit it, nonetheless if they do act promptly and appropriately when they do eventually realise what's going on you need to give them a second chance. My view on DAN Americas is to support them but to keep an eye on them and not support them blindly.

I've not so far heard any bad stories about goings-on in other DAN organisations, such as "my" own DAN Europe, but the US story does make me a bit wary. Unfortunately because many people's preception of "non-profit" organisations is a bit starry-eyed they forget that these organisations contain greedy and selfish people too. Furthermore, since a putative crook knows there'll be less oversight in such an organisation, that's where he's more likely to end up. I've worked at high levels in some pretty big organisations, and the total absence of morals amongst many of the top people in ALL of them staggers belief.