SDP: Rules or Recommendations

[andycarroll]

Hi

Could someone explain to me what this means and how it affects my diving and BSAC membership. It is an excerpt from the Safe Diving Practices Introduction.

"What is safe diving practice for the former may well be very perilous for the latter and so the contents of this booklet are not a set of rigid rules but recommendations for safe diving practices. These recommendations can be amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive."

Is this a red herring or does this mean that should myself and another BSAC member, both with GUE Tech1 which allows for normoxic trimix and 100% o2, decide to conduct such a dive then this would be acceptable within the SDP's 'experience and capabilities' ?

Thanks

Andy

[Nevil Adkins]

Is this a red herring or does this mean that should myself and another BSAC member, both with GUE Tech1 which allows for normoxic trimix and 100% o2, decide to conduct such a dive then this would be acceptable within the SDP's 'experience and capabilities' ?

Andy
As a public domain document, issued by the Sports Governing Body, the SDPs can only be recommendations to the diving public at large, most of whom will not be BSAC members. They need to be common sense reminders of the main points of dive training. Certain of these recommendations will become regulations to people that decide to become members. For example, all agencies? basic training says that carrying an AAS is sensible, BSAC recommend it as a Safe Diving Practice and, as a Branch, my Branch have decided that it is a rule and that if you don?t like it then you are free to go and dive elsewhere.

If you read the SDPs at face value, ie as a set of recommendations to improve general diving safety, then they are generally pretty good. The wording of some items is a bit vague ? the maximum depth for recreational diving is ?recommended? as 50m whereas using your drysuit for buoyancy or not diving in threesomes is ?strongly recommended?. Is it therefore worse to dive as a threesome than to dive beyond 50m, and if so why do most of the training dives require a ratio of 2 students to 1 instructor? Most of the ambiguities are probably due to the incremental nature of the SDPs having been developed over the years. My personal feeling is that the Safe Diving Practices could be dramatically improved by being re-written in a single style that is consistent with day-to-day practice. (I would be willing to do/help with this). When I was a Diving Officer I drafted and the Committee adopted a formal Branch amendment to the BSAC SDPs, in all cases either strengthening the recommendations to Branch rules (e.g. all members shall dive with an AAS) or giving alternate advise (e.g. telephone numbers for emergency response in the country we were located rather than for Britain). By seeing our Branch rules in the context of the greater Safe Diving Practices the rules were clearly laid out and seemed more reasonable than a list of arbitrary rules in random order that I inherited from previous DOs.

The very fact that the SDPs exist draws a line in the sand ? it doesn?t stop you crossing the line but at least it makes you stop and consider what could happen if you take the next step. Lets say that during my tenure as DO someone wanted to step outside of Safe Diving Practices on a Branch dive ? say to use normoxic trimix and 100% O2 to decompress. They would then have to argue their case why they should be allowed to do so, backed up by qualifications, other organisations guidelines, a dive plan, precautions, etc. and a decision would be made. In your example case I would have acknowledged that you would be two people qualified by a recognised, reputable agency diving within the limits of your qualifications and within the guidelines of that organisation and therefore this would be acceptable as a Branch dive. Our Branch Constitution allowed the Diving Officer to apply the guidelines of another organisation in cases where BSAC?s SDPs were inadequate, e.g. NSS-CDG for cave diving, TDI or IANTD for trimix or rebreather diving, etc. There is an implicit requirement that the DO be sufficiently informed to make the decision, which is one of the reasons DO?s should be well qualified (AD+). This type of ?step-out? procedure is applied in many technical disciplines, where a suitably qualified ?Technical Authority? may approve non-compliance to standard procedures.

The final thing to consider is what the consequences of diving outside of BSAC?s SDPs might be to the person that ?authorised? the deviation. As I understand it, if two unqualified people drive up to the beach, put on dive kit they have bought by mail order, do a dive to 100m and die, the verdict would probably be death by mis-adventure and nobody else could be blamed since they had effectively self-authorised the dive. If these people had been members of a Club and this was a Club organised dive then the organisers may be liable under ?duty-of-care? issues in civil law. If the people to die had been trimix qualified, with a reasonable experience logbook and had presented a sensible dive plan for an 80m dive to the Diving Officer, who had allowed the dive to go ahead, it would then be a case of comparing outside of BSAC?s guidelines with inside of another agency?s guidelines. As long as the Diving Officer had shown reasonable care and diligence in ensuring the dive?s safety then they would not be held responsible. I must hasten to emphasise the ?as I understand it? since I am no lawyer and this area seems to change by the day.

Regards

Nevil Adkins

[David Martin]

:=Is this a red herring or does this mean that should myself and another BSAC member, both with GUE Tech1 which allows for normoxic trimix and 100% o2, decide to conduct such a dive then this would be acceptable within the SDP's 'experience and capabilities' ?

Andy,

My buddies and I are in a similar position (we've done DIR Fundamentals, and have trimix certs from TDI allowing deco at 1.6/on O2 at 6m).
We can do a dive on trimix, and deco on O2. We can do it as BSAC members, but not under BSAC guidelines. Whilst I like the loophole idea of 'experience and capabilities' I cannot imagine it getting past a court or an insurance company.

One of my buddies contacted BSACs insurer, who told us words to the effect of "if you deliberately break BSAC SDPs, you will not be covered if such a breach causes the problem that you are claiming about".

If you dive safely, in the UK, and you trust your buddy, you are probably OK. If you dive abroad you are likely to find that emergency medical/travel insurance relies on you diving within agency recommendations. I know that TDI is covered, but I don't know about GUE. For most policies you are OK as long as you are within one or the other set of SDPs (some insurers try to insist that you follow both, with the restlt that if the two disagree your cover is void. One would hope such sillyness would be ignored, but it won't help you if someone is refusing evacuation/treatment, and you need it *now*)

The same will apply in the (hopefully unlikely) event that you are sued by a 3rd party for negligence.
If this were to get to court, the other issue that you have here, is that the UK governing body is likely to be called to state the viewpoint, to try to set the "standard of care" against which you are to be judged. You, presumably would dispute the safety of BSAC SDPs and bring GUE, as an alternative technical witness. This would still be a daunting experience.

The other option that you have is to get your own 3rd party insurance (I paid 27 for a year, no *commerical* instructing).

[I have snipped some of Nevil's comments during my reply]

As a public domain document, issued by the Sports Governing Body, the SDPs can only be recommendations to the diving public at large, most of whom will not be BSAC members. They need to be common sense reminders of the main points of dive training. Certain of these recommendations will become regulations to people that decide to become members.

BSAC is not only the governing body. It is also an agency which issues rules/recommendations to it's members. BSAC might say that it's "recommendations" are "recommendations", however the policy of insurance companies effectively makes them rules, if your only insurance is via a BSAC qualification. This makes them all "rules" to BSAC members. It may complicate matters in other circumstances.

If you read the SDPs at face value, ie as a set of recommendations to improve general diving safety, then they are generally pretty good.

Here is the issue, particulaly for anyone of a DIR mindset. Some of them are not good. Some are restrictive, some are dangerous.

When I was a Diving Officer I drafted and the Committee adopted a formal Branch amendment to the BSAC SDPs, in all cases either strengthening the recommendations to Branch rules (e.g. all members shall dive with an AAS) or giving alternate advise (e.g. telephone numbers for emergency response in the country we were located rather than for Britain).


There is no issue with adding to BSAC rules, since any dive within the strciter rules is also under BSAC's original guidelines.

Lets say that during my tenure as DO someone wanted to step outside of Safe Diving Practices on a Branch dive. In your example case I would have acknowledged that you would be two people qualified by a recognised, reputable agency diving within the limits of your qualifications and within the guidelines of that organisation and therefore this would be acceptable as a Branch dive. Our Branch Constitution allowed the Diving Officer to apply the guidelines of another organisation in cases where BSAC?s SDPs were inadequate, e.g. NSS-CDG for cave diving, TDI or IANTD for trimix or rebreather diving, etc. There is an implicit requirement that the DO be sufficiently informed to make the decision, which is one of the reasons DO?s should be well qualified (AD+). This type of ?step-out? procedure is applied in many technical disciplines, where a suitably qualified ?Technical Authority? may approve non-compliance to standard procedures.

The D.O. can be informed; he may agree on a personal level that a dive is safe and within the guidelines of another agency. However, he cannot endorse diving outside of BSAC SDPs with the D.O.s "stamp of approval".
There has been a discussion recently on the club matters forum about "Official Branch Dives" which might be of interest. I have tried to link to it below.

The final thing to consider is what the consequences of diving outside of BSAC?s SDPs might be to the person that ?authorised? the deviation.
If the people [dying on a dive] had been trimix qualified, with a reasonable experience logbook and had presented a sensible dive plan for an 80m dive to the Diving Officer, who had allowed the dive to go ahead, it would then be a case of comparing outside of BSAC?s guidelines with inside of another agency?s guidelines. As long as the Diving Officer had shown reasonable care and diligence in ensuring the dive?s safety then they would not be held responsible.

I'll elaborate a little on this, ignore if you like :-)

A (civil) action in the Tort of Negligence, requires five components to be shown by the claimant. [There is no difference, yet, whether the defendent is the buddy or the DO]

[1] That the defendent had a duty of care.
[2] Breach of that duty of care.
[3] Loss to the claimant as a result of the breach.
[4] That the damage/loss was reasonably forseable given the above.
[5] That the loss is recoverable, with a quantification of the loss.

Let's assume the claim is for personal injury/death from resulting from a SCUBA diving accident.

[1] Duty of care.
The buddy has a duty of care.
The DO has a duty of care, within the BSAC system. I believe that this duty extends to non-branch dives conducted by members of his branch, in the event that he approves them.

[2] Breach.
This is judged objectively (ie by the judge/jury) with respect to a standard. The most common standard is "the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus" However those with special skills, such as divers, are judged by their piers to the standard of "the ordinary skilled man exercising and professig to have that special skill" (This is the "Bolam principle", from Bolam v Friern HMC [1957])
The guidelines of a governing body (eg BSAC) are strongly persuasive, but not binding.
More practically, if the court accepts that there is more than one relevent "responsible body of opinion", it does not chose between them; it is reasonable to follow either body in the event that they differ (Maynard v West Midlands RHA [1983])

Note that following recommendations might also be wrong, since it is unclear, whether the standard is the standard of such a body, or the standard which that body *ought* to have.

If GUE are presented, and accepted as a "responsible body of opinion", and I believe this to be extremeley likely, then diving within it's recommendations will not leave one exposed to an upheld charge of negligence.

[3,4] are very likely to be upheld, in the case of the buddy, if [1-2]. Such causation and forseeability are less certain against the DO, but may be shown.
[5] appplies for such a personal injury claim.

Disclaimer/for the record, I'm studying law as a student, and do not hold any legal qualifications.

David

[Nevil Adkins]

David
Thanks for your very informative section on negligence. Just a couple of comments:

If you dive safely, in the UK, and you trust your buddy, you are probably OK. If you dive abroad you are likely to find that emergency medical/travel insurance relies on you diving within agency recommendations.

I think you need to read the small print of any insurance policy before buying it. If you are not prepared to stick to the conditions then you need to look for a different policy. Don?t buy the policy and then moan about the small print. This also applies to the BSAC 3rd party insurance, even if it is ?free?. BTW, my Annual Travel Insurance includes 3rd party liability insurance as do many house insurances ? I reckon I?m 3rd party insured at least twice if not three times. It may be worth checking your other policies before shelling out even more for further 3rd party cover.

The D.O. can be informed; he may agree on a personal level that a dive is safe and within the guidelines of another agency. However, he cannot endorse diving outside of BSAC SDPs with the D.O.s "stamp of approval".
There has been a discussion recently on the club matters forum about "Official Branch Dives" which might be of interest. I have tried to link to it below.

A diving club is essentially a group of individuals who are interested in diving. The group may collectively own assets such as a boat, compressor, etc. The activities of the club are usually conducted according to a constitution and organised by a committee appointed in some manner by the members of the group. The group may decide to create its own guidelines for safe diving practices, or adopt those from another organisation, eg BSAC, PADI, GUE, IANTD, TDI or whoever, either on an exclusive basis or according to the decision of the group or individual. If the group lays down in its constitution that it will exclusively follow one set of guidelines then the person responsible for diving has no authority from the members to endorse diving outside of the recommendations. If however the constitution allows that person the discretion to apply the guidelines of any agency then that person has the authority to endorse diving that is outside one set of guidelines but within another. Few people realise what a powerful item the constitution of a club is!

Regards
Nevil

[PeteM]

If GUE are presented, and accepted as a "responsible body of opinion", and I believe this to be extremeley likely, then diving within it's recommendations will not leave one exposed to an upheld charge of negligence.

One important point here - if you present BSAC as the responsible body then it highly likely that the insurance will cover you and that Lizzy will be called as an expert witness. If you site GUE then your on your own

[iainmsmith]

:=The D.O. can be informed; he may agree on a personal level that a dive is safe and within the guidelines of another agency. However, he cannot endorse diving outside of BSAC SDPs with the D.O.s "stamp of approval".
:=There has been a discussion recently on the club matters forum about "Official Branch Dives" which might be of interest. I have tried to link to it below.

A diving club is essentially a group of individuals who are interested in diving. The group may collectively own assets such as a boat, compressor, etc. The activities of the club are usually conducted according to a constitution and organised by a committee appointed in some manner by the members of the group. The group may decide to create its own guidelines for safe diving practices, or adopt those from another organisation, eg BSAC, PADI, GUE, IANTD, TDI or whoever, either on an exclusive basis or according to the decision of the group or individual. If the group lays down in its constitution that it will exclusively follow one set of guidelines then the person responsible for diving has no authority from the members to endorse diving outside of the recommendations. If however the constitution allows that person the discretion to apply the guidelines of any agency then that person has the authority to endorse diving that is outside one set of guidelines but within another. Few people realise what a powerful item the constitution of a club is!

That's true of an unaffiliated club. Unfortunately, I don't have BOH or the draft BSAC Branch Bye-Laws handy (of which there are certain paragraphs that cannot be modified without the consent of the NDO), but I'm pretty certain that a BSAC Branch cannot give itself the authority to operate outside BSAC SDPs. A BSAC DO certainly cannot authorise diving outside those SDPs - his authority to allow diving is derived from the NDO, not from the Branch.

Iain

[BSACHQ]

Hi Andy,
The SDP booklet was reviewed and re-written by the Safety Advisor, Brian Cumming, in May 2002 in order to incorporate the many amendments that have taken place over the years.

The opening text on page 3, that you quote, is there to illustrate that the advice needs to take into account the 'particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers'.

As such there will be recommendations that would apply to an inexperienced pair of divers that are not appropriate for a more experienced pair of divers, and vice versa.

However, in all cases the SDP are the definitive guidelines to be followed by all divers who are diving on that day as BSAC members.

If you are qualified through another association and wish to follow the practises taught on their courses, then you must follow their guidelines, not the BSAC's. If you choose to do this then you are likely not to be covered by the BSAC membership insurance in the event of an incident.

Alistair Reynolds
BSAC Technical Manager

[Vic]

> However, in all cases the SDP are the definitive guidelines to
> be followed by all divers who are diving on that day as BSAC
> members.

Does this mean that we can or cannot join a Branch dive if we're diving outside SDPs? I take the point about insurance - alet's assume that all divers have insurance suitable for their desired dives.

Can I jump on a club boat and do a branch dive whilst adhering to the standards of the agency that taught me, and not to BSAC's SDPs?

Vic.

[iainmsmith]

The SDP booklet was reviewed and re-written by the Safety Advisor, Brian Cumming, in May 2002 in order to incorporate the many amendments that have taken place over the years.

The opening text on page 3, that you quote, is there to illustrate that the advice needs to take into account the 'particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers'.

As such there will be recommendations that would apply to an inexperienced pair of divers that are not appropriate for a more experienced pair of divers, and vice versa.

However, in all cases the SDP are the definitive guidelines to be followed by all divers who are diving on that day as BSAC members.

If you choose to do this [following guidelines other than BSAC's] then you are likely not to be covered by the BSAC membership insurance in the event of an incident.

So what you are saying is that in order for the DO, DM and divers to remain covered by BSAC Third Party Insurance, they MUST follow the entire SDP document as written despite the fact that, as you admit, it contains advice which is not appropriate for the whole spectrum of diving conducted by BSAC members.

If pieces of advice in SDPs are recognised to be inappropriate for certain diving activities, then surely SDPs should reflect that fact and indicate a) under what circumstances that advice may be discounted and b) what alternative practices should be used. Otherwise we are forcing divers to decide whether to sacrifice their liability insurance or their personal safety.

Iain

[edward haynes]

Iain

You are right:

From the model BSAC Branch Bye-Laws:

"These Bye-laws are made in compliance with Rule 3 of the Rules of the British Sub-Aqua Club, shall be subject to the provisions and requirements of that Rule, and shall only be valid to the extent that they are not in conflict with the said provisions and requirements or with those of the Articles of Association of the British Sub-Aqua Club."

Which means a Branch which has Bye-Laws which differed from the guidance of the BSAC SDP could find its Public Liability Cover (from where ever) worthless.

The Branch diving Officer's responsibility (extract):

"The Branch's Diving Officer derives his authority in training and diving matters from the National Diving Officer of the British Sub-Aqua Club. He shall have responsibility for the training and diving activities of the Branch and for the safe conduct thereof, and he shall ensure that the said activities are carried on in accordance with such practices and procedures as may be recommended from time to time by the National Diving Officer or pursuant to his authorisation."

Edward

That's true of an unaffiliated club. Unfortunately, I don't have BOH or the draft BSAC Branch Bye-Laws handy (of which there are certain paragraphs that cannot be modified without the consent of the NDO), but I'm pretty certain that a BSAC Branch cannot give itself the authority to operate outside BSAC SDPs. A BSAC DO certainly cannot authorise diving outside those SDPs - his authority to allow diving is derived from the NDO, not from the Branch.

Iain

[angiemac]

Alistar

How can this be true

However, in all cases the SDP are the definitive guidelines to be followed by all divers who are diving on that day as BSAC members.

when the booklet clearly states

"What is safe diving practice for the former may well be very perilous for the latter and so the contents of this booklet are not a set of rigid rules but recommendations for safe diving practices. These recommendations can be amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive."

Angie

[andycarroll]

Hi Alistair

I have addressed the question to BSAC and Alan has been very helpful in forwarding this matter to both Lizzie Bird and Anne Clarke.

So far I have a response by Anne which implies we are covered when we amend the SDP's by the BSAC TPI. The only matter from my point of view is whether we can do this on a branch dive and in what circumstances. I'm still waiting from a response from Lizzie Bird but Alan assures me they are looking at it. BSAC are being very helpful and I hope this will end the current debate.

Andy

[iainmsmith]

Alistar

How can this be true

:=However, in all cases the SDP are the definitive guidelines to be followed by all divers who are diving on that day as BSAC members.

when the booklet clearly states

"What is safe diving practice for the former may well be very perilous for the latter and so the contents of this booklet are not a set of rigid rules but recommendations for safe diving practices. These recommendations can be amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive."

Because our insurers regard that paragraph as irrelevant. Ask them if you don't believe me. (I did)

Iain

[David Martin]

:=If GUE are presented, and accepted as a "responsible body of opinion", and I believe this to be extremeley likely, then diving within it's recommendations will not leave one exposed to an upheld charge of negligence.

One important point here - if you present BSAC as the responsible body then it highly likely that the insurance will cover you and that Lizzy will be called as an expert witness. If you site GUE then your on your own

Agreed, within the remit of BSAC insurance.
I was trying to be more general, to also include people (such as myself) who have bought *additional* 3rd party cover, which recognises qualifications from other agencies.
I believe that I mentioned that the BSAC 3rd party insurance was unlikely to apply outside BSAC SDPs.

Sorry if this caused any confusion.

David

[Philip Smith]

You are right:

From the model BSAC Branch Bye-Laws:

"These Bye-laws are made in compliance with Rule 3 of the Rules of the British Sub-Aqua Club, shall be subject to the provisions and requirements of that Rule, and shall only be valid to the extent that they are not in conflict with the said provisions and requirements or with those of the Articles of Association of the British Sub-Aqua Club."

Which means a Branch which has Bye-Laws which differed from the guidance of the BSAC SDP could find its Public Liability Cover (from where ever) worthless.

I'm not convinced that this conclusion follows from the preceding extract. While branch bye-laws cannot contradict the Rules or the Articles of Assocation, the SDP are not part of the Rules or the Articles of Association. That is why the status of the SDP is somewhat uncertain and seems to depend on the attitude of the insurance company in any particular case.

The Branch diving Officer's responsibility (extract):

"The Branch's Diving Officer derives his authority in training and diving matters from the National Diving Officer of the British Sub-Aqua Club. He shall have responsibility for the training and diving activities of the Branch and for the safe conduct thereof, and he shall ensure that the said activities are carried on in accordance with such practices and procedures as may be recommended from time to time by the National Diving Officer or pursuant to his authorisation."

This clearly indicates that a Branch Diving Officer should adhere to the SDP, _if_ the branch bye-laws were based on the model bye-laws and therefore contain this passage. However, as I understand it, it is not mandatory that branch bye-laws should be based on the model bye-laws, only that they are "not in conflict with the Memorandum and Articles of Association of BSAC or with the[se] Rules" and fulfill seven listed functions.

In any case, the SDP document itself states that the recommendations within can be "amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive". So it is evidently possible to deviate from the listed recommendations, but still be complying with SDP (provided, presumably, that the deviation is judged safe in the particular circumstances).

Philip Smith

[iainmsmith]

In any case, the SDP document itself states that the recommendations within can be "amended depending upon the particular type of diving being planned and the experience and capabilities of the two divers carrying out the dive". So it is evidently possible to deviate from the listed recommendations, but still be complying with SDP (provided, presumably, that the deviation is judged safe in the particular circumstances).

Philip,

If you believe that is true, go and ask BSAC's insurers whether, based on the above passage, they would back a claim against BSAC Third Party Liability in the event that the defendant's breach of the SDPs (as listed) was the cause of the incident resulting in the legal action.

I have done. I know what the answer is. You stick to the letter of BSAC SDPs or you risk losing your cover in the event that this violation was a cause of an incident.

Iain

[Philip Smith]

If you believe that is true, go and ask BSAC's insurers whether, based on the above passage, they would back a claim against BSAC Third Party Liability in the event that the defendant's breach of the SDPs (as listed) was the cause of the incident resulting in the legal action.

I have done. I know what the answer is. You stick to the letter of BSAC SDPs or you risk losing your cover in the event that this violation was a cause of an incident.

Iain,

I saw your other message on this after I had posted. I think we need a definitive public answer from the insurers. Keith's view is that it is all a grey area. I accept that the insurers have to limit their liability in some way. There are several issues.

Does the insurance company think that complying with the SDP means following the listed recommendations to the letter, or as far as they are concerned, can compliance include the latitude to amend them sensibly for particular circumstances, which is also a part of the SDP document? If the former, as you state, then the recommendations in SDP have become, de facto, a set of rigid rules, when they are not intended to be.

Whether a deviation from the recommendations in SDP were the cause of an accident can only fairly be determined at the end of an investigation. How and when would the insurance company decide if it would underwrite any claim? Could it wash its hands of the case at the outset (pehaps on the basis of advice from the NDC), or would it wait until the outcome of a case had been heard before walking away?

If a deviation from the recommendations listed in SDP was judged to be the cause of an incident, would it automatically be seen as an unsafe practice and therefore not covered, regardless of the experience and ability of those involved? For example, if the NDO, the First Class Diver Chief Examiner and the Rescue Awards Chief Examiner were unlucky enough to have an accident shown to be due partly to their diving in a threesome (in breach of a very strong recommendation in SDP), would their insurance cover be invalidated? I doubt it, because prior to the dive, their expectation of an accident in these circumstances would be justifiably extremely low.

Philip Smith

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

I saw your other message on this after I had posted. I think we need a definitive public answer from the insurers. Keith's view is that it is all a grey area.

Hi Philip

Please feel free to go and talk to DiveMaster. I can tell you now, Iain will confirm this, as will others, that you will not get your definitive statement and answer. There is one very simple reason for that ? there isn?t one. What?s more the answer to some of your questions is not the insurers, the BSAC?s or anybody else?s to give. The actions of the BSAC or the insurers could themselves be challenged in a court of law.

I?m sorry Phillip but that is the reality. It?s not just the BSAC insurance either, it is exactly the same for any type of insurance for anything at all that you care to think of. You are in exactly the same situation for your house insurance, your contents insurance, your life insurance, your car insurance? They all have schedules and exclusions, step outside of those and you enter a grey area that only a court of law can resolve and rule upon.

You will not get your definitive answer or statement because we cannot predict the future. We cannot predict the exact nature and circumstances of future claims, we cannot predict the rulings of future courts. Until we can do that with absolute certainty the definitive statement that you seek will remain elusive, the only answer that anybody can give you with any certainty is ?it?s grey?.

You?re asking for the impossible Phillip.

Regards

Keith L

[Philip Smith]

Please feel free to go and talk to DiveMaster. I can tell you now, Iain will confirm this, as will others, that you will not get your definitive statement and answer. There is one very simple reason for that ? there isn?t one.

Thank you Keith, that was my understanding of your previous messages, and I agree with you. However, Iain seems to be saying that he has indeed had a very definitive answer from the insurance company. My previous message simply said that if that really is the case, let the answer be public.

You?re asking for the impossible Phillip.

I agree that is probably true, but it would not be if Iain is correct about the stated position of the insurance company.

Philip

[iainmsmith]

Philip - I tried to send you an email but your profile address seems to be invalid. Could you email me, please?

My email address is : iainmsmith at btinternet dot com

Iain