A VERY good reason to buy equipment insurance!

Wait a minute, according to his facebook page, Canon has ALREADY helped with new gear. Is he trying to get even M ORE money from his diving friends??

From Ben;

Jeremie Eloy and Hugo Finck working hard during the Julbo Swell session @BoraBora.

Thanks to Canon and Aquatech for their help and the new gear !!

Is this smelling fishy to you all too?

Thats great. Good for him.

It's also great that he managed to flood his gear, and have the company pick up the tab.

I tried to get Canon to replace my A640 that flooded due to a faulty CANON housing a few years back- but I guess either I didnt spend enough money on their garbage, or perhaps it was because it was their fault, but ultimately they didnt give a damn and left me with a useless camera AND housing.

Maybe i am a idiot,

as i just paid about 1800$ to insure my 20'000$ photo and dive gear ...

I belive - and was taught when i was a kid - that when i destroy things i will need to replace it by my self or pay for a insurance.

Chris

Allison, are you sure he is still trying to get money, or is this just a dead thread resurrected long after he'd resolved it with Canon?

...and I know how to spell Mike Veitch!

[/center]

 

Are we to deduce that a dry case did not stay dry? Hard to imagine what on the surface would let that much water in any of the dry cases, unless the main O-ring was totally gone.

I had a similar issue with a pelican case full of Nikon gear, these case are all well top side, but when the sailboat sank in 15 meters of water and I couldn't get to the case for 3 days, well it kinda looked like that too, I think his RIB must have flipped or the case went overboard or something like that, this is beyond spray. so although I do feel for the guy, I have no sympathy for his cause. In my case the insurance told me that water damage outside my home where not covered (read the small character, in the even smaller paragraph, of the diminutive appropriate section), so I grew a pair, assumed my crap, got back to work with whatever cheap and old equipment I could get my hands on and eventually got fully operational again.

Man I wish we could have DAN coverage for equipment up here in Canada!!!

...and I know how to spell Mike Veitch!

Me too, My dear John Bintan LOL

Jean, John,

i am with you guys... i have never insured my gear for the same reasons, if my camera floods it is not due to Nikon, Aquatica or whoever -it means i did not do my checks right or i did not handle my camera correctly. i flooded one of my inon's (Z-220!!) recently and i was upset but when i looked at the root causes... i went to bed late, got up early, put batteries in the strobe, no flood test in the dunk pool and went looking for threshers... upset yes but defintely not inon's fault.... although as a testament to inon it did a 50min dive bubbling away (released hydrogen from the batteries??) and then got to surface was flushed with fresh water, blown out with air, left in the room for a day and then spent the next few months happily working... (do i get a free one now?)..

no really it is still working....

When we expose our delicate equipment to a salty, windy, sandy atmosphere we take the risk knowingly and we all have our methods to eliminate that risk. Our housings are the engineered contol on that, but a suit case with that huge sealing area - the best you can hope is that it will float.

my two cents,,

I know there are numerous threads about insurance here, but is it not now the case where most poicies won't cover flooding? I searched for a quite a while and never found a company that would cover flooding while diving... at least here in Canada. That one well-known outfit in the US (that I cn't remember) offered a policy but the premium was about $1000 a year. I figure that in the worst case, I am going to flood a body and one lens, or one strobe or something, so I simply accept that as part of the cost of the hobby.

If I suffer a total loss... stolen, case falls of boat/out of plane etc. I am covered.

I just bought $4300 of D800 & 16-35 lens. The guys at the local pro camera store (whom I know very well) suggested I buy a Mack 3 year extended warranty. They said it covered everything excpet fire and theft. I said "really - even uw floods", and they said "yes". So for $349 I went for it.

They also do two pro sensor cleannings as part of it, as well as cover other repairs for the 2 years past the manfgs warranty.

I know there are numerous threads about insurance here, but is it not now the case where most poicies won't cover flooding? I searched for a quite a while and never found a company that would cover flooding while diving... at least here in Canada. That one well-known outfit in the US (that I cn't remember) offered a policy but the premium was about $1000 a year. I figure that in the worst case, I am going to flood a body and one lens, or one strobe or something, so I simply accept that as part of the cost of the hobby.

 

If I suffer a total loss... stolen, case falls of boat/out of plane etc. I am covered.

A while back, I was working for a large camera store in Montreal, I was sharing an office with the guy in charge of handling insurance case, one thing that came up on occasion was the following. the person would water damage its equipment (housing flood, dropped in a puddle or what not), then the insurance company rep would request a repair estimate, which as you know, would confirm that the photo equipment was beyond economical repair,the the rep would pull the "I'm sorry, your policy does not cover repair" the catch is that, even if it is not repairable, it is still treated as a repair.

In some other case, water damaged was only covered if the damaged occurred inside the house!!! Been there, done that and got the f&^%ing T-shirt

So my advice is check with your insurance supplier and make this little detail clear with them.

If you ever flood and are in doubt, do like a friend of mine, go to the bow of the boat, shoot some imaginary dolphin with your flooded camera gear and then quietly dispose of it (in a safe and non polluting way), then proceed to see the Captain and just advise him that you camera just slipped from your hand and is now resting in Davey's locker, then claim the camera as a loss, (which should be covered)

If you believe that you have sustained an insured loss and the value is over the threshold (i.e. £1,000) where an insurance loss adjuster will be engaged by the insurers, my advice is to engage an insurance assessor. An assessor should (on a no win no fee basis but max 10% of insured value) represent you in all aspects of the claim and investigation by the loss adjuster. Remember that a loss adjuster is engaged by the insurers to mitigate loss and the justification for their involvement is to demonstrate savings to the insurer, i.e. a reduction in settlement. In my experience, just the fact that the assured has engaged an assessor usually means that the loss adjuster does not 'dig' too deep into the circumstances of the claim where they may find 'evidence' to reduce or reject the claim.