SchmeckFlyer

I don't want to pass judgement, but these type of incidents make travel insurance that much more valuable. Not sure how it is in other countries, but I pay a standard €7 per month that covers all sorts of incidents to a high maximum amount. I once went scuba diving with an expensive watch, when I came to the surface it was filled with sea water. My insurance paid for the repairs (several hundred euro). The best part is: the incident didn't ruin my holiday, because I knew insurance would probably cover the expenses, so I shrugged, and just got on with having fun. That is the most valuable part of insurance.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

I would much rather have my premiums stay low through fewer claims on travel insurance. If an airline or third party is liable, attempts should be made to recover there first.

Steve in Olympia

Scuba diving with an expensive watch makes about as much sense as taking a Hermes bag onto an airplane. Travel insurance coverage for irresponsible acts simply shifts the loss onto everyone who buys insurance for legitimate unforeseen events.

LTN Phobia

The insurance company will try to recover the payout (or part thereof) from them anyway under the subrogation. Insurers are there to make money and they will try to recover the money where there is a possible liability.

Another thing is that it is unlikely that anything like a £8,000 bag would be covered by a standard insurance policy without paying a (substantial) extra premium for a specified item anyway, so anyone who successfully claims for it is unlikely to have just a 'normal' policy.

Of course, scuba diving with an expensive watch (what constitute 'expensive' I guess is open to interpretation) that is NOT waterproof to the particular depth would not be covered, but if it is waterproof to sufficient depth and it leaks and it is covered by insurance (or even warranty), then "why not claim it" is my view. It saves me having to deal with the company myself.

Our annual travel insurance policies cost us about £600 (for two persons, and they are extensive [and expensive!] policies that cover some 'high risk' sport activities as well and for 90 days at a time whereas standard policies are often for 30 days) and I certainly would claim on it even if BA had been at fault for instance, unless it's a straight-forward claim that I know BA will just deal with it. When BA broke my suitcase I didn't claim on it because I knew BA would deal with it fairly from past experiences, and saved me filling out the stupid insurance paperwork, so I dealt with them directly, however.

tom139

Just to update you that BA have paid in full up to their liability. This includes replacing some damaged items and the cleaning cost of the bag. Hopefully this will work.

To give BA credit, once uploading a report from Hermès and associated receipts, they have been quick at authorising payment.

Dave Noble

Scuba diving often has additional premiums ; also , pretty much all equipment suitable for diving is by its nature, expensive and coverage for scuba diving takes this into account

Travel insurance companies set limits on items - it is perfectly sensible to choose an insurance whose coverage levels meet ones needs

Scuba diving is a a legitimate activity to buy insurance for

onylon

Why buy a watch that is waterproof to appropriate depths and then not use it for the activity it was designed for? This seems like a "legitimate unforeseen event" to me and SchmeckFlyer wisely bought the correct coverage for his valuables.

Tom139: I'm glad BA paid up and hope the cleaning is effective.

amanx

You live in the same world i do.

I could buy a flash new car, or a hermes bag. But would be afraid to drive one, and use the other lol. I just bought a new car, but it was 2 years old lol.

Calchas

Oh I understand that there is a ... "niche" market for such items.

Calchas

If this is proven, the liability limitation does not apply.
The point of the Montréal Convention (and its predecessors, the Warsaw Conventions) is that there are hundreds of airlines in the world, domiciled in different places and subject to many different systems of law, and for a consumer, living in country A, who purchased a ticket at an office in country B for travel between countries C and D via a layover in country E ticketed on the airline headquarted in country F but registered in country G (but with the actual operating carrier based in country H) to understand what the airline's liability is would require an army of international lawyers.

Also many airlines would attempt to contract out their liability (indeed, many still claim to do so).

Finally on interline journeys, one airline could blame another airline, and without a direct contract between you and the operating airline, all carriers involved might escape liability.

So we had a quid pro quo. Both the first and last carriers are strictly liable to the passenger for damage and loss, whether it is their fault or not. The airline cannot contract away its liability; it is fixed. The passenger may sue the airline where he purchased the ticket, at the airline's headquarters, or at his destination, whichever is most convenient for him. But the liability is limited. So there is some certainty for both the consumer and the airline.

See https://www.icao.int/secretariat/Pos..._liability.htm for a history [Comic Sans trigger warning!]

stifle

I’ve never had to declare my claims history whilst buying travel insurance.

Also, the insurer may well go after the third party in question after paying you out. Part of the premium you pay covers that.

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Insurance companies are there to make money. If there are more claims, premiums in general will go up. Maybe having to state previous claims would be a way to offer cheaper insurance to some.

Dave Noble

The insurance I have asks for details of claims made in last 3 years, when a claim is made

nufnuf77

Mine does not. And they always paid out.

Dave Noble

I have never had an issue with insurance paying out either - but I suspect that it might discourage some fraudulent claims