Flood and Equipment Insurance

[Dee]

I've had 2 claims with DEPP that took place on dive trips where I either couldn't or didn't report it within 5 days. One was a strobe flood and the other was a dropped camera. I called as soon as i got home 7 and 9 days later (respectively). DEPP accepted the claim with no problems once they knew I was on a trip.

The strobe was replaced with a brand new strobe shipped to me from Sea & Sea. The camera was repaired at one location, and did not require additional work.

 

[Genesis]

I mean, seriously here - how often is this supposed to be considered "acceptable"?

Yes, I know its a mechanical thing, you open it, it has O-rings in it, and they can fail and flood the camera on you.

But let's be serious here - how often does it happen? And if its a common event, how come that's considered acceptable by the diving community?

Its not impossible to make something that won't turn into mush in a year or two, 'ya know.

Is it just cheap housings? Or is there a QC problem? Or is it an "overlooking the obvious" user problem?

If the latter, that's under your control. If the former two, then how is that considered acceptable service out of things that cost this much money?

 

[blacknet]

Hello,

Anytime you have a mechanical device of any form you have some degree of flood risk. There's many things you can do to minimize those risk like keep the rings clear, clean and with proper function. It's not a question of if it floods but when it floods.

I have seen photographers use camera housings to beat off sharks, eels and other things like jellyfish. Rather have a flood/damage claim with the diving ins than with medical ins.

Most floods are caused by a chain of events that is unknowing to the diver. i.e. the airline drops your housing container on the runway (true story, it was my housing and I was watching as they loaded the plane).

Is it just cheap housings? Or is there a QC problem? Or is it an "overlooking the obvious" user problem?

As for the correct answer I would say it's D) all of the above

Its not impossible to make something that won't turn into mush in a year or two, 'ya know.

Yes it is. Take a good look at the nikonos line, esp the III. That unit has been around for a very long time and still sees service. That body will still be around when your digital unit craps out of old age.

Ed

 

[Dee]

In all my years of taking a camera U/W, I have had one flood. It was the strobe I previously mentioned and was caused by a defective battery cap which S&S recalled.

 

[BurBunny]

I was reading this thread yesterday while doing some comparison on DEPP and DAN preparatory to purchasing.

Up to now, I've not insured my equipment (boy have I been lucky!) As I move into digital, I've become convinced I definitely need flood/theft/damage insurance.

I've read with interest the past debates of DEPP v. DAN with most of it coming down to DEPP has lower deductible and replaces your equipment (good if you need a particular camera to fit a housing), while DAN has a higher flood deductible but pays cash (which could be problematic if you only needed the camera replaced - what to do with the housing?).

I decided to write to H2Oinsurance (the carrier for DAN) and specifically asked how a claim would be handled for a flood wherein a camera was totalled and was no longer a current model, thus rendering the housing useless. Would a claim for an otherwise undamaged housing be honored? Here was the answer I received:

"I would suggest that when you schedule your equipment that you list your camera and housing together. This way the adjustor will look at both items needing to be replaced."

For me this makes a significant difference in evaluating the policies. $250 deductible that might only cover the camera is pretty much not worth it. Include cash for a new housing too - now you're talking something that could be a nicer option than just getting a refurbished camera to fit the current housing.

Thought I'd pass this along in case others were going through the same decision process. This definitely puts a new wrinkle in the comparison.

 

[Genesis]

If they'll actually replace BOTH if one is no longer a current model, that's a huge "real" difference.

The question is whether they actually will.

Also, note that most cameras can be had on eBAY for a loooong time. I can still find my old Minolta (film) SLRs - at any time there are many examples for auction, for a pittance compared to what I paid for it originally!

 

[ssra30]

Genesis once bubbled...
If they'll actually replace BOTH if one is no longer a current model, that's a huge "real" difference.

The question is whether they actually will.

I wrote to DEPP a couple of months ago asking exactly the same question. As far as DEPP goes, if your camera is flooded and it is not a current model, you can pay the differences between what you insure and the newer model. However DEPP will not replace the housing for you unless the housing is also damaged.

 

[Genesis]

it was a nice theory while it lasted!

 

[BurBunny]

ssra was talking about DEPP's response, which is exactly what I expected since that policy talks about replacement of the damaged item.

DAN (H2Oinsure) is the one who answered that both items should be scheduled together. They pay out in cash, so you get to decide what to replace. I am going to call the person who replied to me today, but I have a feeling we may have a major difference between the policies here.

Amber

 

[Genesis]

Ok, I had it backwards.

If that is indeed the case then DAN's insurance is VASTLY superior.