shh-DAN-agins

Genesis

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.

__________________
"A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American."
http://www.denninger.net
http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket

rogeringebo

So whats the deal with DAN Europe?

onetime

Headquartering or basing out of a foreign country does not immunize a company from US prosecution.

nigelh

You guys seriously buy insurance like that???

I'm sorry. This just sounds like a scam. Would you Western Union money to a guy in the Cayman Islands for some rebreather you 'won' on Ebay? Would you expect any sympathy from us when it all went wrong?

__________________
nigelh

onetime

Many companies headquarter in foreign countries to avoid taxes and certain requirements. It does not mean they are insulated from legal proceedings in the US. They do business here, they have assets here, they can be legally held responsible here. Ingersoll-Rand, Stanley, et al are "Headquartered" offshore solely for tax reasons. Want to complain that they're avoiding US taxes which would otherwise go to government coffers? Fine, I'm behind you. Want to claim that it's solely to scam their customers and I'm not. Multinational companies regularly follow such paths to avoid fees, regulations, and taxes. To castigate DAN for doing so (if in fact they do, I'm not clear on their incorporation status but was just responding to what Genesis posted). No doubt there are companies in the UK that do similar. If not the company as a whole then, without doubt, subsidiaries of the companies.

If you want to include companies with the most subdidiaries with offshore tax havens, on a blacklist you'll have to add Bank Of America, Citigroup, Marriott, Bell South, Boeing, Pepsi, Viacom, JP Morgan Chase, Sara Lee, Amex, Xerox, Lehman Brothers, Prudential Financial, etc.

Genesis

It does, however, allow them to give the finger to a US summons (and discovery subpoenas) with a high probability of getting away with it.

Of particular interest in this scenario is that I have asked - twice - for exactly what the charges are that DAN is complaining about. How much per hour (or per Table <X>, whatever they're griping about) along with a representative sample of US and foreign chambers and locations.

How else can we, as buyers of said insurance, know if DAN is the one being victimized here, or whether SSS is right and DAN is jacking them.

What I've gotten is stony silence in response.

Having dealt with health insurance companies before (I ran a company for more than a decade) and having had to go to war with one in the past that tried to jack one of my staff members (we won), I can tell you that the threat of a suit closely followed by discovery subpoenas had a rather magical way of turning things around. If the company can give the finger to that process and get away with it - and an offshore concern almost always can - your leverage is greatly reduced.

People set up corporate structures like this for the specific purpose of what is euphamistically called "asset protection" - that is, preventing lawsuits.

I'd love to see a company do something like this that made a rebreather, for example, and then sell them to anyone who wants to buy and has money. The obvious purpose - cutting the liability concerns completely out of the deal - would, in my opinion, be a feature in such a transaction.

But when it comes to insurance, you're buying a product that is there for the specific purpose of getting you out of a jam when you jack yourself! In that case my view of "asset protection" is quite a bit dimmer....

Oh, quick question to onetime - just what assets - and nexus - does DAN's insurance arm have in the United States? Ever try to get an answer to that question? I have - and have been unable to.

All of the firms you cite have VERY visible presences here in the US.

__________________
"A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American."
http://www.denninger.net
http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket

onetime

And what has been your success at getting such information from DAN competitors? What about SSS? Have you contacted them?

Your postings are extremely accusatory and I suspect there are few if any companies that would meet your requests in a manner that is timely enough for you. If your conversation was similarly worded to your earlier postings (threats of AG involvement, offense that DAN didn't address this earlier even though it just happened, etc), I can understand DAN's hesitation.

I've been in healthcare about 6 years now and I have yet to see a company that quickly and readily supplies actual costs around their policies, reimbursements, etc.

Genesis

It may have been in the other thread here or on another board, but I have noted that it is basically impossible to get a list of what "reasonable and customary" is from any US insurer. I've tried - and failed - more than once - when I was the CEO of the company buying the policy! And, as I just noted, I have had to go to war with one of these companies before after they decided one fine day to stop covering an (expensive) prescribed medication that a staff member, in the opinion of her physician, needed (with no medically-acceptable substitutes) - meds that she simply couldn't buy at retail given her financial position and up until that instant in time had been on their formulary.

I'm not in this business but I know enough about how it works from my dealings with the health "insurance" scam, er, industry to be well-aware of the potential problems and pitfalls that await people even when everyone's in the United States! Now we've got a situation where both the insurance company and the provider of service have no nexus here.

I do not know who the "bad guy" is in this dispute Onetime. It may be SSS and it may be DAN. But I am not SSS's customer - I am DAN's - and therefore, it is reasonable for me to demand these answers from them - not from SSS.

If, after a reasonable airing, it appears that SSS is the "bad guy", then the appropriate application of economic pressure would be to lead a boycott of the affected areas. This is like using an atom bomb to kill termites, but it certainly would get the message across. On the other hand if DAN is the "bad guy" then the right approach is to eviscerate their US insurance arm through resignations from their insurance.

Problem is, DAN doesn't seem to want to pony up with any of the facts, and this isn't a new dispute at this point. Its been going on since January at least, and it appears that the root of it goes back far longer than that.

Their latest claim to me on the phone is that DAN is suing in "Federal court", and the guy I talked to outright called what SSS was doing "extortion." That's a very strong word, and it didn't come out of my mouth! The lawsuit ought to be interesting, considering that SSS is not a US company and from what I can determine has no US nexus and it appears that DAN's insurance arm doesn't either. If DAN (the non profit) tries to sue SSS that'll get tossed since the non-profit has no financial issue. It also belies the question - what would DAN be suing for? If they have refused to pay, where's their loss?

This whole thing is quite convoluted and quite honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. DAN Europe has no problem with SSS, and neither do any of the other guys. It doesn't make sense for SSS to target the "900lb gorilla" for a rate game; that sort of thing is typically done to the smaller insurers, not the bigger ones, in terms of market impact.

Anyway, as I said Onetime, I don't know who the bad guy is, but DAN isn't helping me make that determination. And this, fundamentally, is all about that - who has the black hat.

This was all academic until this latest salvo, when it suddenly became very personal, as I have a trip booked to Belize in about two weeks - my intention in going there is to dive, of course. DAN's "assurance" sent to me by letter is no such thing, and as a result I believe I am compelled to buy some other form of dive insurance "just in case" (after all, $100 is a LOT cheaper than the cost of fighting over a 5-digit chamber bill!) - and once I do that, there's no reason for me to support DAN any further.

__________________
"A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American."
http://www.denninger.net
http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket

onetime

As far as who "the bad guy is" I'm going to have to put my money on DAN as being the good guy based on their commitment to the dive community throughout its history. While there have certainly been some questionable events in the DAN world I have never felt nor have I seen examples of DAN shortchanging its customers. SSS, on the other hand, I do not know. What I do know of them is that they are using press releases in an apparent attempt to blackmail DAN's payment to them of charges they feel are reasonable. The tactic implemented by SSS calls into question their integrity and agenda in my mind.

As far as not supporting DAN any further, if you believe the only benefit that DAN offers the dive community is insurance, then I suggest you look a bit more deeply into the organization. Of course, I am not telling you how to spend your money, just that DAN is more than just an insurance company.

Now, in terms of your upcoming trip, do you know if SSS is the only chamber operator in Belize? While SSS would like to think it's the only game in town, often it's not. For instance, Cozumel has two chambers only one of which is owned by SSS.

Genesis

DAN has a checkered past in the insurance side. The imbroligo with Bennett was entirely related to the insurance arm, and we will never know exactly what happened - but DAN did spend quite a bit of our money on lawsuits and we never did find out what really went down.

You may not feel that DAN shortchanged its customers by spending that money and allowing that sort of thing to go on, but I do. Not to mention Bennett's golden parachute - all of which we paid for.
DAN's insurance is completely separate from membership - it is a for-profit company, not a benevolent charity. Effectively, DAN licensed its "name" in diving medicine to a for-profit company to provide dive insurance.
DAN says they are. Were I going to Coz, I wouldn't care since there's a second, non-SSS chamber. But according to the DAN rep I spoke to (since they'd be the ones coordinating care right now, given my current dive insurance) the SSS chamber is it in Belize.

There is a real problem with "usual and customary" charges in situations like this. You have a medical device that is rarely used, yet when its needed, its REALLY needed. It requires regular maintenance, whether used or not, people must be on call, supplies must be kept fresh, etc. This sort of situation is going to lead to much higher costs per hour of operation than if, for example, the chamber was used routinely for wound care. If DAN is trying to apply US standards to this sort of remote location, they're nuts.

But without the facts, there's no way to know exactly WHAT is behind the problem, and DAN isn't talking.

As I've said I've been willing to cut DAN some slack based on their support of diving medicine and research. But for that, I would have bailed on them when the Bennett thing came to light, as IMHO that was a clear misuse of membership funds occasioned and made necessary by bad management.

But that didn't impact my dive insurance. This little thing does. While its of no consequence to me when diving locally, for it to rear its ugly head just a couple of weeks before I leave on an international trip, where the protections that I have in the states regarding treatment and effective legal redress are essentially void, is quite troublesome.

While I know that a bend is a low-probability event (haven't had one yet), its a risk one takes every time we dive. That's why I bought the dive insurance... and now, for THIS trip at least, it appears to be worthless.

__________________
"A venturesome minority will always be eager to get off on their own, and no obstacles should be placed in their path; let them take risks for Godsake, let them get lost, sunburnt, stranded, drowned, eaten by bears, buried alive under avalanches - that is the right and privilege of any free American."
http://www.denninger.net
http://www.diversunion.org/liability.htm - Fix the Diving Cert racket