'Restrictions' on Life Insurance [Archive]

View Full Version : 'Restrictions' on Life Insurance

Lisa (BB)

25-01-2008, 07:55

Hi -

Has anyone had any probs in the past when taking out life insurance?

Recently moved down south and so had to get new life insurance (last house we were in so long that we 'forgot' to mention we were divers! oops!).

1st company we found quoted £40 a mth, found out we were divers and consequently upped it to £120 a mth (needless to say that went straight into the bin!! lol).

Found 2nd company (Axa), but they are now saying that they will only pay out if we cop it during a dive of less than 40m's! (we're both qual'd to 50m's - OWI\AD & OWI\DL).

Does anyone know of a company that dosen't have this backward view on diving and sets limits based on quals\diving within safety guidelines etc?!

Thanks for any info provided :)

PeteM

25-01-2008, 08:16

Jo Brooks

25-01-2008, 08:42

I ended up using a broker and have Life Insurance for £5.99 month from Norwich Union.

Robin

25-01-2008, 08:48

I don't know whether this is still in place:

http://www.bsac.org/news.61.htm

May be worth ringing the contact to check it out

tony J

25-01-2008, 09:38

Hi -

Does anyone know of a company that dosen't have this backward view on diving and sets limits based on quals\diving within safety guidelines etc?!

Am I the only one to this is not backwards ? Do you not acknowledge that the risks of diving beyond 40m are greater for you than 30m. ?
Many people die every year diving within their qualifications.

I think 48m on air is quite deep, I am pretty narked at that depth - at 40m I'm ok.

Its very easy to have a go at insurance companies as being evil money grabbing swines, but they are just selling on risk from underwriters who are looking at broad statistical risk.

Tony

ChristianG

25-01-2008, 16:45

Am I the only one to this is not backwards ? Do you not acknowledge that the risks of diving beyond 40m are greater for you than 30m. ?
Seems to me that "think" is missing from that first sentence, after which it makes some kind of sense.

Actually diving at 31m is a greater risk than 30m given that you are in the next band of decompression as well as more susceptible to the narks.

Many people die every year diving within their qualifications.
Care to give us chapter and verse? How, and in what geographical area, does one define "many people"?

What, indeed, is "many"?

I think 48m on air is quite deep, I am pretty narked at that depth - at 40m I'm ok.
At 40m you're OK? In what conditions, blue water?

In what circumstances, no current, boat anchored, on the anchor line?

Oh, sorry, you're always "OK" at 40m or less? Really?

Presumably you're not working, by which I don't mean commercially.

Its very easy to have a go at insurance companies as being evil money grabbing swines, but they are just selling on risk from underwriters who are looking at broad statistical risk.
Technically incorrect (all insurance companies employ underwriters) but they also use reinsurers which I suspect is your term for underwriters where they lay off that part of the risk that they do not wish to accept for themselves.

Just like we all do if we do not fully insure a particular item.

I do agree though that insurance companies are often accepted to be evil entities that will screw us any way they can. Isn't it wonderful how so many of us seem to consider it acceptable to make doubtful claims of insurance companies when all we're really doing is stealing, and hereby increasing premiums for everyone.

JimW

25-01-2008, 16:59

What, indeed, is "many"?

Hi Christian

I would respectfully suggest that one is "too many"?

Jim

Michael Purcell

25-01-2008, 18:18

Actually diving at 31m is a greater risk than 30m given that you are in the next band of decompression as well as more susceptible to the narks.

....

tony J

25-01-2008, 21:28

Care to give us chapter and verse? How, and in what geographical area, does one define "many people"?

What, indeed, is "many"?

about 15 BSAC/UK divers per year for as long as I have been diving
Too many of my firends and too many of my heroes have died underwater to deny it is risky.
perhaps that 15 in 200,000 divers every year? (1 in 10000 ?)

At 40m you're OK? In what conditions, blue water?
Presumably you're not working, by which I don't mean commercially.

No, any where. OK at 40m = nicely narced, rather than worryingly narked (or am I the only one to think you need to be a bit narked to think being at 40m undewater is a sensible place to be)
I don't work underwater, that would lead to Co2 retention and that would be silly and then I'd get horribly narced.

Tony

Gordon

26-01-2008, 00:42

No, any where. OK at 40m = nicely narced, rather than worryingly narked (or am I the only one to think you need to be a bit narked to think being at 40m undewater is a sensible place to be)

So you never have 'off days'?

Gordon

bigjo

26-01-2008, 15:22

Too many of my firends and too many of my heroes have died underwater to deny it is risky.

With all due respect, I don't want to be your friend given that they keep popping off :D

No, any where. OK at 40m = nicely narced, rather than worryingly narked (or am I the only one to think you need to be a bit narked to think being at 40m undewater is a sensible place to be)
I don't work underwater, that would lead to Co2 retention and that would be silly and then I'd get horribly narced.

Tony

Bit of a problem with this, I don't feel that it is possible to be nicely narked (given that narcosis is unpredictable and variable). At any place underwater I would say that any kind of narcosis is worrying.

Is any depth underwater a sensible place to be then?

Lisa (BB)

26-01-2008, 16:22

Am I the only one to this is not backwards ? Do you not acknowledge that the risks of diving beyond 40m are greater for you than 30m. ?
Many people die every year diving within their qualifications.

I think 48m on air is quite deep, I am pretty narked at that depth - at 40m I'm ok.

Its very easy to have a go at insurance companies as being evil money grabbing swines, but they are just selling on risk from underwriters who are looking at broad statistical risk.

Tony

Tony -

I am quite aware of the risks of diving at ALL depths - and would also use the appropriate mix for the respective depth. However, as a qualified diver I'd like to be able to make my own mind up as to what depth I dive to and not have it dictated to me by the insurance companies!!

I'm also quite happy to pay for insurance if it provides what I require - which includes occaisionally diving 40m+

tony J

26-01-2008, 17:48

I'm also quite happy to pay for insurance if it provides what I require - which includes occaisionally diving 40m+
I must have misuderstood, I interpretted

1st company we found quoted £40 a mth, found out we were divers and consequently upped it to £120 a mth (needless to say that went straight into the bin!! lol).

which made me think that you were not prepared to "pay for it"

I would not be prepared 120 quid, but then I don't have life insurance due to have a mortgage from a nice bank.

How about going through a broker ?

Tony

Dave Whitlow

26-01-2008, 19:20

How about going through a broker ?
Tony

Agreed. Also you should search for a broker who understands diving and will match your needs against the company. This will save you the time of getting quotes from companies who have a simplistic view of diving and just want to inflate your premium to offset their perceived risks.

There is comment from BSAC here:
http://www.bsac.org/page/865/insurance-cover.htm

Also, if you are getting life cover you should ensure you provide full disclosure of health, lifestyle and diving you actually do. Insurance companies are not above finding a detail not disclosed and using this small fact to void the policy and avoid payout.

Not surprisingly diving factors which affect the premium are level of training, depth of diving done, holiday diving or frequent diving, inshore vs offshore diving (some Red Sea reefs are offshore) and whether you enter wrecks or caves.

Dave

Dave

27-01-2008, 23:19

Tony -

I am quite aware of the risks of diving at ALL depths - and would also use the appropriate mix for the respective depth. However, as a qualified diver I'd like to be able to make my own mind up as to what depth I dive to and not have it dictated to me by the insurance companies!!

I'm also quite happy to pay for insurance if it provides what I require - which includes occaisionally diving 40m+

They are not dictating what you can or can't do, however if the insurance company doesn't want to cover diving deeper than that which is typically viewed as the recreational depth limit , then you will be assuming your own risks for those dives or you can choose another company for coverage.

Deeper diving does have more risks and the company has a limit of risk which it wants to assume in various areas

Dave

Lisa (BB)

28-01-2008, 20:24

They are not dictating what you can or can't do, however if the insurance company doesn't want to cover diving deeper than that which is typically viewed as the recreational depth limit , then you will be assuming your own risks for those dives or you can choose another company for coverage.

Deeper diving does have more risks and the company has a limit of risk which it wants to assume in various areas

Dave

Classed as the recreational depth limit by who? - BSAC state my limit is 50m's?

And yes - 'deeper' diving does have more risks however these should be managed whatever depth you are diving to.

Also regading risks - isn't it more dangerous to drive anywhere than dive??!!!! lol

OK I'm being 'slightly' argumentative here - but if we're disclosing what we do (safely) and are going through all the relevant medical checks (both having full reports done by GP's and have disclosed all so not 'hiding' anything) why won't the insurance companies accept the diving limitations set by the organisation you belong to and the qual you have attained, be it BSAC, PADI etc etc?

And I don't mind if I end up paying slightly more - just not 3 x what I was originally quoted per month!!!

Thanks to all those who have suggested brokers\links - am checking those out!

Janos

28-01-2008, 22:35

An actuary aquaintance of mine told me that a thirty-year old diver who dives regularly below 50m would be weighted as a 53 year old for life insurance purposes.

Janos

Janos

28-01-2008, 22:39

Classed as the recreational depth limit by who? - BSAC state my limit is 50m's?

And yes - 'deeper' diving does have more risks however these should be managed whatever depth you are diving to.

Also regading risks - isn't it more dangerous to drive anywhere than dive??!!!! lol

OK I'm being 'slightly' argumentative here - but if we're disclosing what we do (safely) and are going through all the relevant medical checks (both having full reports done by GP's and have disclosed all so not 'hiding' anything) why won't the insurance companies accept the diving limitations set by the organisation you belong to and the qual you have attained, be it BSAC, PADI etc etc?

And I don't mind if I end up paying slightly more - just not 3 x what I was originally quoted per month!!!

Thanks to all those who have suggested brokers\links - am checking those out!

Hi Lisa,

Life Insurance is basically a bet. It is in the bookie's interest to price the odds correctly as if they are too long then they lose out due to overpaying when someone snuffs it. If they are too short they don't get any custom.

The problem with diving is that there is (fortunatley) very little evidence available, hence it's hard for the bookies to come up with odds, hence the wide spread.

Don't take their prices personally. Divers who dive below 40m are a small market.

Janos

Dave

29-01-2008, 05:32

Classed as the recreational depth limit by who? - BSAC state my limit is 50m's?

I said typically classed at the recreational depth limit; the fact that BSAC training covers to 50m is , I would posit, the exception for a recreational agency rather than the norm; agencies such as PADI and SSI limit to 40m in their recreational training and I can understand why an insurance company would use this as a level to work with

Dave

Lisa (BB)

29-01-2008, 08:18

An actuary aquaintance of mine told me that a thirty-year old diver who dives regularly below 50m would be weighted as a 53 year old for life insurance purposes.

Janos

Perhaps I should just get my zimmer frame out then!!!!! rofl!

ChristianG

29-01-2008, 09:51

Perhaps I should just get my zimmer frame out then!!!!! rofl!
Actually Lisa, it's not funny, even apart from the fact that I, for one, am already well over that hypothetical age :rolleyes:. If the underwriters decide that's the case, so be it and nothing that you (or I) can do will change that.

Of course it would be interesting to find out what they would do to this ancient one because in the instance that Janos specified I would well and truly be dead whereas, last time I looked, I regularly managed to exceed 40m.

You may not know it but an incredible lady called Leni Riefenstahl (http://www.leni-riefenstahl.de/eng/bio.html) started diving at 70 and continued until at least 99, including photography, her primary love, until then.

Fortunately in my neck of the woods we do things rather differently where insurance is concerned.