Worsening insurance crisis

[Hoyden]

However, the big payout by PADI in the Linnea Mills case must be giving insurance companies pause for thought.

I have yet to see any information on the size of any settlement in the Mills case. Can you share where you got the amount?

 

[Subfiend]

I have yet to see any information on the size of any settlement in the Mills case. Can you share where you got the amount?

I am not aware of any information on this topic that is available to the public, nor should there be any.

I will also note that the insurance company involved in the Mills case stopped insuring the scuba market approximately one year ago.

However, in general, when a person or company applies for insurance from a new company, the first thing the insurance company asks for is a history of claims. This history of past claims is a significant factor in determining whether the applicant is worth insuring in the future and, if so, at what amount. If the number of past claims is too high, the applicant will not get insurance, because it costs money to defend each claim. If the value of the past claims is too high, the applicant will not get insurance, because it costs additional money to pay out on a claim after incurring at least some costs to defend the claim. If the applicant is offered insurance at any price, that price will reflect both the value and number of claims. In a nutshell, to make a profit, the insurance company has to collect more in premiums than it pays out in claims and the cost to defend claims.

Forgive me for oversimplifying things. It was not just one case that caused the industry's current problems. This trend has been on a downward slope for at least a decade.

 

[scubadada]

I've been trying to figure out this certification depth/diving depth topic for some time and how it applies to diving today.

Back in the day, 1997, I was recertified OW by PADI. My 4 certification dives were all <60 feet. Prior to getting AOW and Deep Diver in 2004, 25% of my dives were <60 ft, 50% were>60 but <100 ft, and 25% were >100 ft, max 121 ft.

I got my AOW mainly because I was planning trips to Key Largo and wanted to dive the Spiegel Grove and the Duane. The operator I was to use required AOW or recent deep experience for these dives, It seemed like AOW was the path of least resistance. The deep dive for my AOW was to 108 ft and counted toward Deep Diver. The other 3 Deep Diver dives were 116, 130, and 102 ft, the last planned and executed entirely by my son and me.

I was asked for my AOW but never Deep Diver in Key Largo. Between 2004-2015 I did 24 dives on the Spiegel Grove with 22 over 100 ft, 129 ft max. I did 21 dives on the Duane, all >100 ft, max 122 ft.

I have done some reasonably adventurous dives over the years. the only other time I remember being asked for AOW, but not Deep Diver was to dive Deep Ledge in Jupiter, FL I've done that dive 16 times, 14 >100 ft, max 135 ft. Some of the liveaboards I have used have had a loose dive number requirement, but none a higher cert than OW.

So, I have never figured out the <60, >60 to <100, >100 ft thing and the relationship to OW, AOW, Deep Diver. Nobody has ever mentioned a relationship between cert and liability insurance.

So, @Tracy you seem to interpret this pretty literally. Do you require AOW/Deep Diver for depths >60-130 ft?

One thing is for sure, some of the required certifications in SE Florida have recently been changed or are changing soon Pending changes for certifications required for JDC dives There were some increases in charter prices post Covid, not sure I've seen a change due to insurance costs, perhaps that is next.

I'll leave solo diving out of the conversation. I did not get my SDI Solo Diver cert until 2013. More than 30% of my dives since 2004 have been fully solo, many more of the drift dives in SE FL, part solo.

Thanks

 

[Tracy]

So, @Tracy you seem to interpret this pretty literally. Do you require AOW/Deep Diver for depths >60-130 ft?

It isn't really an interpretation, as I posted, It is literally printed in the standards in black and white.

And this really doesn't apply to me, as I only have one recreational shop that I charter with and they always have an instructor in the water with their divers. But yes, I would require AOW for dives deeper than 60.
My charters are primarily technical, and cert level comes into play when picking wrecks and depths.

 

[John Bantin]

I have yet to see any information on the size of any settlement in the Mills case. Can you share where you got the amount?

The plaint was for $12million but PADI settled out-of-court thereby avoiding the witness box. The actual amount paid is confidential among the parties.

 

[Hoyden]

I am not aware of any information on this topic that is available to the public, nor should there be any.

I will also note that the insurance company involved in the Mills case stopped insuring the scuba market approximately one year ago.

However, in general, when a person or company applies for insurance from a new company, the first thing the insurance company asks for is a history of claims. This history of past claims is a significant factor in determining whether the applicant is worth insuring in the future and, if so, at what amount. If the number of past claims is too high, the applicant will not get insurance, because it costs money to defend each claim. If the value of the past claims is too high, the applicant will not get insurance, because it costs additional money to pay out on a claim after incurring at least some costs to defend the claim. If the applicant is offered insurance at any price, that price will reflect both the value and number of claims. In a nutshell, to make a profit, the insurance company has to collect more in premiums than it pays out in claims and the cost to defend claims.

Forgive me for oversimplifying things. It was not just one case that caused the industry's current problems. This trend has been on a downward slope for at least a decade.

I agree with your first statement. That is why I asked that question. I guess that I was looking for John to admit that he did not "know" that there was a large settlement.

Jackie

 

[John Bantin]

I agree with your first statement. That is why I asked that question. I guess that I was looking for John to admit that he did not "know" that there was a large settlement.

Jackie

Why don't you ask the plaintiff's lawyer?

 

[Wookie]

Subfeind *is* the plaintiffs lawyer.

 

[John Bantin]

Subfeind *is* the plaintiffs lawyer.

I don't think he wants people to know that.

 

[Subfiend]

I don't think he wants people to know that.

I don’t really hide it. That’s just the name I used when I signed up for Scubaboard many years ago.

The terms of any settlement in litigation in the United States are normally confidential. I have no comment on the settlement in the Mills case.