halemano:Although some of the logic is questionable, if I know a diver has inbibed or is hung over and there is an accident involving said diver, it is very likely my insurance will not cover it. On the other hand, if I do not know, there is a good chance the accident will be covered. My insurer may go after said impaired diver (or his estate) if the truth comes out. As an instructor, I would not be a prudent one if I were impaired on any dive, so my insurer could refuse to cover any accident, even one that happened when I was not impaired, because of a history of imprudence.:no
I don't like that logic but the fact is it exists.
Before you unilaterally decree it as fact perhaps you could point to some concrete examples and to the specific exclusion clauses. Insurance routinely covers the faulty decisions of it's insured. Have an auto accident and your claim isn't going to be denied because you were driving too fast or had several tickets on record. Fall out of a tree while trimming limbs and your claim isn't going to be denied because you were not using a safety harness or had been drinking. The insurer can raise your rates or cancel your policy but the incident remains covered. Exceptions must be explicitly excluded.