Printable View
I read the recent UWS articles on safety (Jim Wyatt's, then Ralph DiPanfilo's) and was struck by the sentence (DiPanfilo): "All too often spouses and children are left without a mother or father and no financial support...."
Seems like the NSS/CDS and the NACD and other's could create a fund to help those who lost not just a loved one, but a significant portion of their livelihood. I'd pay increased dues for such a fund and make special annual contributions.
-skip
It would be nice to find a term life policy that doesn't have a cave diving exclusionQuote:
Originally Posted by skip
Sorry but I have to disagree if this is a problem spend time with your children and get a good life ins policy and have bar BQs for the little league and PTAs go play golf and go fishing,I don't want to pay for your mistake,I have my affairs in order if you don't then don't go CAVE DIVING
Are you saying I need to read the fine print on my life insurance policy??? crap... there is an issue I haven't yet thought about....Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop
Will have the "insurance dude" on this tomorrow!
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by RH
I dont... many organizations have funds to help support families. The marine corp has a fund to pay for the college education of kids of marines killed in service... just an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob
I would be more than happy to contribute in support of kids and families in need, regardless of the circumstances...
Regardless of the details, regardless of circumstance, you still have compassion for the kids... they had no role in what has happend, not their fault... but they are impacted.
More than happy to help.
This is a recreational sport, not a natural disaster. You caused this by your own actions (or inactions). Man up - Take care of your own. Don't leave your family in a condition that requires my help.
I see your point and respect it, but do not agree with it.
Bob
Does anybody have a Jacket, this conversation is getting rather cold hearted!
Not "cold hearted"- just a matter of accepting personal responsibility for yourself and those who depend upon you. We live in a society in which it is another's fault or another's responsibility- never our own.
I agree with Bob- right on.
JR
I understand that self-responsibility is the key to cave diving, but recently we've seen deaths that simply were not the fault of the diver. Sure, let's hope they were conscientious enough to have things set up for their surviving family, but that's not always possible, and it's not always what you think it is. As Kelly points out, many policies exclude activities like scuba diving (let alone cave diving).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly Jessop
As I understand it the NSS/CDS (and maybe NACD) have attempted in the past to find a group policy they could offer. Surely there are cave divers who are also insurance brokers reading this forum...?
As for a fund, I was thinking of something like the police and fire departments have. They recognize the responsibility of the group to look after their own in times of need, when the individual was simply unable to. A volunteer fund (not part of dues) would seem to satisfy those who care and those who don't. Even if it's no more than a flower fund (although more something more substantial and more long-lasting would be nicer), at least it's a way to let the surviving family know that membership means more than paying dues.
-skip
I think you would have to give a couple of examples of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by skip
I, for one, would not ever vote for an increase in dues to cover people who are not financially responsible enough to determine if death due to their past time will impact their families. If you feel that you dont want to pay the additional insurance to cover your cave diving and keep your family secure, then perhaps you are too cheap to be cave diving, or perhaps cave diving is more important than your family. Either way, if you want to set up an independent fund for irresponsible (or unlucky?) cave divers, by all means, but dont force it on those that do take care of things.
jason
p.s. thanks again for the tent! :)
The examples I was thinking of were the oxtox cases (or so believed due to lack of any other cause) of late. I am definitely no thinking of untrained divers going where they don't belong and a fund that helps members families (not nonmembers) in real need. I was also bouncing off the DiPanfilo's article in which he referred to widows and children in dire need (I took it for granted that his statement was/is valid, but maybe it isn't).Quote:
Originally Posted by rchrds
Also, I would never think of imposing or forcing things onto others; I did state I'd pay more in dues if needed and I would, but I think a volunteer fund is better idea. In fact, I think a group life insurance policy available to members who want it is the best idea, but that seems difficult to come by. Remember, most people do not have access to insurance that covers risky activities (I am sure you do, as do I, but most policies exclude diving).
Anyway, it a suggestion for discussion and I see the point of those who think it's a violation of self-sufficiency and self-responsibility. I do agree with you on a personal level, but also think the cave diving community has a responsibility to our fellows to not let their families go wanting if we can help it (whether they died in a cave or on the highway).
-skip
PS: you're welcome! glad I was able to help out.
As a Marine myself I support the fund for children of fallen service members. Those men gave their lives selflessly for others. I was in two combat zones, if I was to have died I would not expect anyone to pay for my family, but I would greatly appreciate it. Now, if I go and get myself killed in Little river doing something that I think is fun and is all for me then I died selfishly and no one is responsable to pay for my screw up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
If one wants others to take care of ones loved ones after ones (unfortunate) passing, especially during a recreational activity, then one should live in a society that supports that.
There are many 'nanny states' in the world, many do not have caves like we do here in FL. (and I use state in the true sense of the word).
There are life policies out there that do not have cave diving in their questionnaire............as long as you do not freely give this info and they do not ask............. you are not lying or misrepresenting. Once you passed the two year 'the insurance can refute everything' period, you are home free to kill yourself in a cave and leave a nice bonus for the misus and kids.
timely discussion. i'm working on getting life ins right now, and i'm a single parent. i want to provide for my baby. i was honest about diving though glossed over cave diving since i hadn't done it in a year at the time i applied. if i can't get ins...then i'd love to hear what suggestions you'll have.
Hi Johnny,Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyrichards
While I am ALL FOR accepting personal responsibility, sometimes things happen that are out of our control. While I would not like to have an increased fee on my dues, I strongly believe that the NACD or the CDS should make it a priority to find an insurance carrier, and offer it through the organization. Something similar to DAN. Although I am not sure as to the exact numbers of NACD or CDS members that have met their end in a cave, I assume that the number is relatively low. I would be willing to get such a policy, and it might even draw in new members for that reason. Dan requires you to be a member before you can get their insurance. How many people do you think would be members of DAN if you could get their insurance without membership? It could be a much needed financial boost to the cave organizations, which in turn, might let us get more caves!
I just don't see how it's such a bad idea... :smt102
I don't think it's a big deal to find term life insurance that doesn't have a cave diving exclusion. I have a 10 year policy with met life, they never asked about cave diving.
If you dive in the caves there is a risk, very very low but not zero, that you will die. if you are financially responsible for someone else, and you don't carrry sufficient insurance to take care of them in the event of your passing, you're just gambling that the risk is acceptable. But like every other gambling event, you shouldn't expect to get bailed out if you lose the gamble. Be responsible for your decisions in the world.
Volunteer funding ? Sure, go for it. Increase my dues ? No.
I agree ~ Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK
Baby Duck if you are a single mother with a child and no ins and no large mound of money I personally would hang up my drysuit for a while. If I did have kids they would be my world, thank god I have 2 wonderful dogs that let me go diving.
You could also die tomorrow morning while crossing the street. When it's your time, it's your time. There's no cheating the reaper! I say, live your life like today is the last day. No regrets.Quote:
Originally Posted by RH
We have had this thread many times over the last couple of years. One thing is for sure Have a Will and an advanced directive.
If you are fortunate enough to work for a company that provides a group life policy, you know the open enrollment crap you do every year. They usually (caver) edit Cover just about anything except Suicide. Additionally they usually have a suppliment at 2x annual salary with no underwriting. I just went through this at work and I asked at the meeting about scuba limits. There were none unless I wanted more that $100000 of suppliment coverage.
So as it stands I'm worth more dead than alive..... But don't tell anyone
i hear ya, rh, but i dive wet. ;) i'm more of mike's 'live for the now' viewpoint, though.
curt, i do have the will, an advanced directive, & a trust for the boy. good point, though - on my gear box is a tag with what to do & who to call in an emergency, and it tells folks to look in my glove compartment for my adv dir.
does everyone discuss who to call / what to do with new buddies?
Although I've been diving off and on for decades I only started cave diving four years ago.
My wife was not keen on this as she had grown up in Gainesville and had heard about the perils of cave diving her whole life. One of the things she insisted on -- and that I was planning on doing anyway -- was to get life insurance.
I got a very nice policy through the Lincoln Benefit Life Company that had a section about scuba diving but did not go into detailed questions about technical diving, (at least not when I got this policy four years ago).
I also set out to get as much training and experience as I could, (which I continue to do), which also makes me a safer more competent diver.
This is what individuals should do who have others that look to them for support; like family members.
Some of these sentiments are admirable, but let's keep in mind that the long term financial needs of survivors can easily run well into six figures when there are minor children.
I can't see any of the organizations being able to generate anywhere near this kind of money.
The best value would be if the organizations could sponsor a group insurance policy that would cover cave diving. Or the organizations could provide a list of life insurance without exclusions, or perhaps less expensive rider clauses.
In daily life you can easily be killed through no fault of your own. Diving and cave diving is no different. If your death will cause a financial hardship for your family, it is your responsibility to plan for that however unlikely it may seem....
My $.02 worth....
David
I disclosed my cave diving to my insurance carrier when I took out my policies in 2002. The agent said that there was no exclusion, and because it had been disclosed by me, the policies were valid without issues. He also said that after two years they could no "reinterpret" their exclusions or my disclosures to deny coverage, so I'm safe, and so is my family.
Mark
I had just the opposite experience about 3 or 4 years ago....I was talking with an agent about supplemental life insurance, and like a dummy I asked about cave diving, at that time there was no exclusion for it listed, but when the same agent came around a year later, there was a specific exclusion for cave diving/cave exploration.....go figureQuote:
Originally Posted by mfascuba
We recently had a new life insurance policy come up at work, and as an incentive to get people to sign up, there was a no questions asked for anyone signing up in the first month it was offered. I jumped on the opportunity, and after reading all their fine print, there was no "Cave Diving" or "Scuba Diving" disclaimer. I signed up for it. However, I'm sure if I would have sat through their normal questionaire, that the agent would have stricken me or jacked up the rates.
There was a insurance guy up here in North Carolina that actually told me that he would refuse to insure anyone who ever went scuba diving below 100 feet. Most of the dives here in my neck of the woods are at about 110-125fsw...so I got banned by his company. :roll:
You know, of all the stupid stuff people do to endanger their lives....driving drunk, driving to work, driving for a living, playing golf near thunderstorms, swimming, waterskiing, etc. it still boggles the mind that trained divers are considered an "unacceptable risk" to insurers. Last I checked, there weren't a whole lot of divers getting waxed every year, but there sure were a lot of golfers wearing goofy pants and hats getting struck by lightning out on the back 9.....
On par here, it might be nice to get one of the sanctioning bodies, or both together to attempt to get some group rate from an insurance company that would not penalize you for the "cave diving" hobby....but it would probably be hard to find a company to do that, especially when EVERYONE in the group partakes of what these companies perceive to be sooooooo dangerous.:roll:
I don't recall seeing scuba exclusions in any AD&D (Accidental Death & Dismemberment) policy. AD&D is pretty cheap, readily available through lots of organizations (such as employers, credit unions, etc.). Most cave diving deaths are accidental, not medical. Could be a good way to go, or at least supplement your estate.
David
Let's turn this around.
It would be useful if the NACD or the CDS could work with a major insurer to convince them that cave diving has low enough mortality stats to not warrant an exclusion clause. As an incentive to that insurer, NACD or CDS could advertise their product on the organisation's website as an "official" insurer.
This would help people to do the planning. Which, I have to agree, is the individual's duty. It's nuts for us to collectively self-insure. Especially since we all have different needs. Someone with a $1 million mortage who dies uninsured with 3 kids has different needs to someone with no mortgage and only a spouse. How do we decide who gets what?
This is the whole reason insurance companies exist. It's up to each individual to get the coverage THEY need to leave their dependents financially stable.
And I fully agree that anyone who hasn't done that has no right to be in the water. It's incredibly irresponsible to leave your dependents floundering because of your hobbies.
A side note - last I remember hearing, if they specifically ask you about SCUBA and you lie and they find out about it, your contract with them will be null & void. Even if you die doing something non diving related so folks, please keep that in mind.
For the NACD, I tried (for months) to get NACD branded gear insurance last year without success. The reason being simple economics; there aren't enough of us for the insurance company/underwriter to make money on. All of the underwriters (6) and insurers (4) I spoke with gave me the same answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
If there were 10,000 of us and everyone elected for the policy they might have the ability to make money. I strongly suspect the same situation will arise if one of the organizations tries to brand life insurance as well. Not sure it would be a marketable product for a training organization to sell life insurance anyway.
Do exclusion clauses arise in response to high incidence of events or as a way of dealing with adverse selection and information asymmetry? It seems like the annual mortality/morbidity stats would be helpful if it's incidence of events that is deterring insurers from extending coverage to divers.
Thinking about how exclusions for other conditions/activities have changed, my life insurance policy now has a 2 year quasi-exclusion period after which it will pay out under suicide. Would a similar delay help to ensure that the "bad risks" in diving are not all flocking to obtain insurance?
I think it's the asymmetry and selection problems, PLUS assumed risk for a sport they have limited stats on... which is a way of saying that there's both systematic and idiosyncratic asymmetries in information for the insurer.
The 2 year clause sounds like a great idea for mitigating ALL of these problems for an insurer. Problem is, we deal with brokers, not actuaries. And it'd be hard to explain these concepts to a broker.
Which is back to why it would be nice to involve a group. I see DAN has something:
http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/in...e/coverage.asp
But it ain't cheap. Interestingly given that the premium is primarily based on age, they aren't really charging that high a premium for diving. Under 29's are paying just over 0.1% of the payout. That's pretty good odds!
I'd prefer it if they did slightly more vetting. This policy covers smokers, and generally does little exclusion for health reasons.
It might help to point your broker to this, and THEN see if they can come up with something better. They would recognise this type of policy and could probably offer you something better if you're in good health.
Mike's right. Disclose everything. I doubt they'd refuse to pay if you died in a car crash because you didn't disclose diving... but if you DID die diving your family may be left in bad shape.
I don't know and I'm no lawyer but...Quote:
Originally Posted by aainslie
I don't think this is necessarily true, if it were, wouldn't they just add an exclusion into the policy for non payment if the death occurred while, or a direct cause of, diving?
I believe that most insurance investigators are motivated by a hefty bonus to find a reason not to pay out a million dollar policy.
Failure to disclose being an active diver, if asked, in signed contract is a lie and an intentional move to deceive [fraud], making the contract null and void.
We must have some lawyers here. It would be interesting to find out the correct answer to this.
Just a real quick Google search I found this...it's out of Colorado, but it's interesting none the less.
It specifically addresses non disclosure of existing medical issues but I would think non disclosure of recreational activities would be subject to the same rules.
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
From this web site http://www.douglasturner.com/2007/12/10/life-insurance-suicide-and-the-two-year-one-year-rules/
Life Insurance and the Two Year Rule:
After a life insurance policy is in force for two years, failure to disclose a medical condition on the insurance application cannot be used to defeat coverage. Theoretically, a person could lie through their teeth on the insurance application and the beneficiaries could still collect a death benefit so long as the policy is in force for two years before death.
This rule can be used by the insurance company, too. If an insured dies within that two year window, the insurance company can deny coverage if the insured did not fully disclose his personal and medical history, even if it has nothing to do with the cause of death.
As you can imagine, if an insured dies within that two-year period, the insurance company may make every effort to obtain medical records, look for something that was not disclosed and deny coverage. For example, if the insured is hit by a truck and did not disclose treatment for cancer, the death benefit can be denied. The fact that it was a truck that killed him is not relevant.
My wife asked about scuba diving being covered and the agent (at work, group policy) instantly pulled out another form asking the details (training agency, how many dives per year, c-card number, etc.). It wound up adding about $10.00 per month on the policy. However, if she hadn't asked about it the agent (HR person) would not have produced the form and presumably she would not have been covered. I too have group coverage at work, but my policy specifically mentions "scuba diving, all types," as being covered without any special forms to file. Also covered is piloting a small plane, hang-gliding, sky-diving and other stuff. I recently upped the life insurance to the max and maxed the life-time disability, which meant a complete health check and doctor form to fill out. The form asked about recreational activities and I checked the box for scuba diving, but wrote in "in caves." They never asked for c-card or anything and approved the policy.
-skip
It appears a group policy through work is you best bet. I have curious so I check my policy at work too. As long as I didn't ask for more than the standard two time yearly salary plus $100,000 supplimental, there is no underwriting. Then if you want more there is underwriting questions and Scuba is asked about. Since I didn't want to open jars I left it at the $100,000.