Quote: (Originally Posted by onetime)
You seem to be implying that DAN lied about how many chambers this affects when in fact, per the date of the SSS announcement, it's a new development. Feel free to take your business elsewhere. I suspect that SSS will not be content to take on DAN and, if they're successful in this war of press releases, will move on to the other insurance agencies. If you think that it's fraud because there's a dispute over payments, then you better look much more closely at your health insurance companies as there are plenty of things it doesn't cover and the coverages change continually even while your policy is in effect. DAN has served the industry extremely well for decades, one dispute with one chamber operator hardly begs the question of whether they're mismanaged or have done anything remotely warranting AG intervention.
I am implying no such thing.
This is indeed a new development - SSS and DAN not only apparently haven't settled the issue that drove the January announcement, they also haven't managed to contain the problem and it is now spreading.
I did not allege that it is "fraud". I
did allege that DAN has structured their insurance business in a fashion that will make it essentially impossible for me to sue them if there is a dispute over payments that I am unable to resolve using other, more peaceful means. They did this by locating that
for profit subsidiary which sells the insurance in the Caymans, thereby exempting it from US lawsuits and US judgements.
Since the problem (if there was to be one) would
also be outside the US, I'd be faced with both a provider of service
and an insurer that are outside of the reach of the legal system of my home nation, which means that, quite effectively, I am barred from seeking relief.
Now up until this newest announcement the number of locations affected has been small (three)
and in one of them there is another chamber. However, in Belize, unless something has changed recently, there is
one chamber - the one now involved in the dispute. The same is true in some of these other locations (e.g. the Bahamas chamber)
When pressed on this (just the other day) DAN sent me a fax (which I have scanned and posted on my forum) which gives me little or no comfort that I would not be left in the situation above - attempting to press a legal claim against foreign corporations, after having paid in cash for the treatment.
Fortunately, I
can pay in cash, which means that at the worst I'm out (a lot) of money.
What happens to someone who
can't pay in cash?
Do they die on the gurney?
I have been willing to give DAN the benefit of the doubt on a number of other issues, including the nasty allegations of Bennett's misconduct (which led to lawsuits and a
sealed settlement - so we cannot determine what did and did not happen as DAN's members - nice!) due to the research work that DAN performs - a unique benefit to the diving community.
However, I did not buy dive insurance only to find out
three weeks before my scheduled departure on an international trip that it is explicitly no good at my destination - after being sold
worldwide, no-exception coverage.
That just plain old-fashioned
sucks.
There
are other alternative carriers - DiveAssure (underwritten by AIG) and NAUI (underwritten by Markel) - both of which offer similar if not superior (in the case of NAUI's in particular) coverage at similar costs. Both Markel and AIG are large carriers with significant US nexus - eliminating the concern of not being able to seek redress against them if it becomes necessary. In the case of Markel I have done quite a bit of research on them as my boat's insurance was placed through them a few years ago, and I am completely comfortable with them as an insurance carrier.
If DAN cannot (or will not) provide a no-weasel-word solution to this problem before my departure, I will do the prudent thing and secure alternative dive insurance.
Having done so, when my DAN policy comes up for renewal in June the notice will, as you might expect, go in the trash.
I am also going to forward a copy of the insurance policy, DAN's fax, and this announcement to the Florida AG's office and Insurance Commission, and ask whether or not there is a regulatory issue here they should be looking into.
As for whether any of this warrants AG intervention, I am not an expert on what does and does not fall under the insurance regulation statutes in this state. If DAN's dive insurance does, then it does. Of particular concern to me is the fact that the company offering the insurance has no US nexus and as such is very likely effectively immune from US legal process should it become necessary.