I might not have stated this properly.
All insurance, whether it is from a 3rd party policy or from using a vacuum device on your housing is designed to mitigate costs assocated with a catastrophic flood.
- a vacuum device is a preventative insurance measure, since you should see if there is a leak before it actually damages anything.
- an insurance policy is strictly an after-failure solution, but is also designed to ultimately protect your investment.
Any solution is reducing the odds of a loss. A person could say, I'm *never* going to flood a camera and I'm not going to buy insurance or a vacuum device. If this turns out to be correct, that person has saved a lot of money. Over ten years, probably enough to buy a pretty nice camera setup.
A person who pays for any and all options available is "safe", but they surely understand over a ten year period they are perhaps doubling the cost of their setup.
With computers, I'm totally a gambler. I never buy the insurance for a phone or tablet or computer. I think monetarily I'm ahead of the game.
Of the two mitigation options available, having a vacuum device seems signifcantly superior to having insurance. Insurance may buy you a new system, but it won't fix flooding your camera on the 2nd day of your $7000 trip. Plus, the odds of a flood surely go down by at least a factor of 10 with a vacuum device. I'm considering not doing flood insurance and just relying on a vacuum system. Flood insurance doesn't cover theft anyway and I have that coverage through other sources.
I am aware you can still flood a system with a vacuum device, but it would seem to be a pretty rare occurrence. It will be interesting to see how many people buy flood insurance 5 years from now when all housings have vacuum systems installed from the factory. I have suffered two floods in 30 years of diving. Both would not have happened with a vacuum system. I am betting when it comes standard on all housings floods will be a very rare occurrence.
Edited by johnspierce, 07 November 2013 - 09:22 AM.