Travelling with UW housings etc

[wildafrica 1]

Hi all,

I would like to find out what everyone else is doing when they travel with their housings and uw gear?

I recently travelled to the Caymans, and on my return trip, my Nauticam housing and video lights were stolen out my locked pelican case, which was check-in. The airlines and insurance are refusing to compensate saying that equipment should not have been in my checked luggage, yet I am not allowed to carry it on as my carry-on is already pushing weight limits with camera and computer gear. So would like to know what everyone else does when they travel?

Thanks

Anthony

[TimG 62]

1 hour ago, wildafrica said:

The airlines and insurance are refusing to compensate saying that equipment should not have been in my checked luggage,

This is a bizarre response. Are they saying the items are “valuables”? Anyone out there in the insurance business who can comment?

I always take my housing as cabin baggage and if challenged plead fragility - which usually works. With video lights could you use the lithium battery argument? 
 

A really upsetting response to a seriously annoying event. 
 

 

[wildafrica 1]

Hi Tim,

Yes, they are claiming they are valuables (their definition of "valuables" refers to "cameras and camcorders", nothing about an uw housing, so they are seeing the housing as a camera - not sure how to get around this)! I would like a response from anyone in the insurance line because this is obviously very distressing, as I cannot afford to replace this housing otherwise. I purposefully took out the travel insurance to cover an event like this, not expecting this type of response.

Thanks for your input!

Cheers

Anthony

[Architeuthis 133]

Hi Anthony,

This sounds strange. I am sure you need to continue your negotiatons with airline/insurance. Clearly Nauticam housings in travel bags are intended as "check-in" (see Nauticam homepage). In your case it is not even pure damage, but burglary. First is the airline to reimburse you, but they usually have very low maximum limits of 1k - 3 k, and the rest ought to be paid by the insurance (in case you have one that covers also defth and not just damage)...

Insurances are notoriously unwilling to pay and one often needs to fight for his/her right: few weeks ago I had a case, when a cooking field was damaged by a power failure caused by a thunderstorm (about 1k Euro for replacement). The household insurance refused to reimburse us, stating such damage is not covered, until my wife (who is a lawyer) studied the contract and one one of the sixty (!) pages she found a special paragraph that stated that especially such damage is covered. No excuse by them, but at least they payed in the end...

 

Wolfgang

 

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by Architeuthis

[wildafrica 1]

Hi Wolfgang,

Thanks for your response! I would love to find a legal mind to peruse the T&C's because I also feel their definition of a valuable does not cover an uw housing, as a housing is NOT a camera!

The insurance does cover theft, but they are hiding behind the "valuables" description and the fact that it was in my checked-in luggage. They saying it should have been with me in carry on. But my carry already weighs more than 7kg, and it just not possible for me to carry more equipment with me as I already have 2 bags, one with cameras and lenses and the other with laptop etc.

Thanks for commenting!

[ChrisRoss 150]

unfortunately you need to read the fine print on policies.  One policy I saw said in effect you need to carry cameras or valuables onboard unless the airline forces you to check it.  You could try documenting the weight of your items and quote the airline carry-on policy and weight limits to show it would break airline baggage policy to carry-on board?

[wildafrica 1]

Thanks Chris!

I thought I did go through the T&C's but obviously not fine enough! They are classifying the housing as a "camera" and thus a valuable. So what would a housing be classified as as it is NOT technically a "camera"? Because the invoice says Nauticam housing for Nikon D850, they now seeing it as a camera, and not as underwater gear to basically keep the camera dry! Not sure what everyone else would classify the "housing" as, hence it would be good to hear from some insurance experts?

I will definitley follow the weight story, although did try to explain to them I am forced to check it in due to weigh constraints, but again they hiding behind the definition of a "valuable".

Thanks for your input!

[TimG 62]

Is there a definition of "valuable" in the T&Cs?  

Seems to me this is, sadly, one of those cases, as Wolfgang highlights, where you have to marshal an argument and fight your corner.

As you say, it's fairly straightforward to argue it's not a camera. If that's the insurer's case then it should be possible to knock it down.

A housing would not be considered by "a reasonable person" a "valuable". It's not precious or rare. However the insurer would argue that is relatively costly. So how are they defining "valuable"? That is a very relative term.

Annoying!!!!! 

 

[mchiado 2]

4 hours ago, ChrisRoss said:

unfortunately you need to read the fine print on policies.  One policy I saw said in effect you need to carry cameras or valuables onboard unless the airline forces you to check it.  You could try documenting the weight of your items and quote the airline carry-on policy and weight limits to show it would break airline baggage policy to carry-on board?

Interesting provision—you must carry on cameras….That may explain why Philippines Air let me hand carry a very heavy roll-aboard that they first said needed to be checked. When I mentioned cameras, the gate agent it changed her tune. 

[jcfig 4]

Very sorry this happened to you. It is one of my biggest fears when I travel which is why I purchase UW gear specific insurance - not cheap!

One thing you might consider is posting to Reddit's legal advice sub https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/ - there's often attorneys there willing to offer some great advice.

Best of luck

[davehicks 89]

Please share the name of your odious insurance company so we can all steer clear of this company.

I just recently reviewed my camera insurance after a near miss loss of my entire camera rig on a dive in Fiji. (Lanyard became unclipped on a dive and dropped it. Later found!)

I had let my standalone H2O insurance lapse years ago and was relying on homeowners personal property insurance. I asked my insurance agent with Safeco about my options. I itemized about $22K worth of gear that includes my UW and Wildlife camera setups. They suggested two options: 1) $185/year to cover itemized list with zero deductible 2) $135/year to cover $25K of non-itemized "camera gear" with a $500 per claim. I chose option #2.

Has anyone used Safeco for a UW gear claim?

[TimG 62]

18 minutes ago, davehicks said:

They suggested two options: 1) $185/year to cover itemized list with zero deductible 2) $135/year to cover $25K of non-itemized "camera gear" with a $500 per claim. I chose option #2.

 

That sounds like a very good deal indeed, Dave. $135 to cover $25k.

Last time I looked at UK insurance rates through an agency that many people use, for scuba and u/w camera gear the rate worked out at approximately 10% of the total sum insured. So almost £2k to insure £20k. 

[JohnLiddiard 26]

This is a scenario we all dread. I know my home and travel insurance won't cover camera and housing theft or loss (unless I pay an excessive premium). I work on the premise of camouflage. Checked bags shouldn't look valuable.

Not quite the same, but the most effective response I have seen is a name and shame song United Breaks Guitars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars. United initially tried to duck compensation, but the saga of songs went on and Dave Carroll definitely came out on top while United dug themselves into a deeper PR hole.

 

[wildafrica 1]

21 hours ago, TimG said:

Is there a definition of "valuable" in the T&Cs?  

Seems to me this is, sadly, one of those cases, as Wolfgang highlights, where you have to marshal an argument and fight your corner.

As you say, it's fairly straightforward to argue it's not a camera. If that's the insurer's case then it should be possible to knock it down.

A housing would not be considered by "a reasonable person" a "valuable". It's not precious or rare. However the insurer would argue that is relatively costly. So how are they defining "valuable"? That is a very relative term.

Annoying!!!!! 

 

Their definition of "valuables" is as follows:

Jewelry, watches, items made of or containing precious metals or
semi/precious stones, furs, binoculars, telescopes, computer games, any
kind of photographic equipment (camera, camcorder) , audio, video,
computer, television, fax and phone equipment (including mobile phones),
MP3 players, tablets, laptops, PDAs, electronic games, TVs and CDs,
mini discs, DVDs, cartridges, video and audio tapes.

I am trying to get a Lawyer to determine if their definition of "photographic equipment (camera, camcorder) can be extrapolated to "underwater housing", as strictly speaking a housing is nothing other than a waterproof cover, and not a "camera".

And likewise for lights - underwater lights do not fall under photographic equipment either - they can be simple torches if one wants to use them that way!!

Interested in other peoples interpretations?

[wildafrica 1]

11 minutes ago, JohnLiddiard said:

This is a scenario we all dread. I know my home and travel insurance won't cover camera and housing theft or loss (unless I pay an excessive premium). I work on the premise of camouflage. Checked bags shouldn't look valuable.

Not quite the same, but the most effective response I have seen is a name and shame song United Breaks Guitars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Breaks_Guitars. United initially tried to duck compensation, but the saga of songs went on and Dave Carroll definitely came out on top while United dug themselves into a deeper PR hole.

 

Funny that it should be the SAME AIRLINE!!!! Wish i could sing ....

[TimG 62]

35 minutes ago, wildafrica said:

am trying to get a Lawyer to determine if their definition of "photographic equipment (camera, camcorder) can be extrapolated to "underwater housing", as strictly speaking a housing is nothing other than a waterproof cover, and not a "camera".

Sounds a good plan and worth a try for sure.

That definition seems incredibly broad and, as the insurer is doing, could be used to cover so many every day things. If they were being bloody minded, as it appears, a housing could be construed as photo equipment- that’s what it’s for: to allow you to take photos. But then you could raise the same argument for, say, a clamp and arm or a camera rain cover. 

[makar0n 55]

On 12/19/2022 at 10:04 AM, wildafrica said:

Hi all,

I would like to find out what everyone else is doing when they travel with their housings and uw gear?

I recently travelled to the Caymans, and on my return trip, my Nauticam housing and video lights were stolen out my locked pelican case, which was check-in. The airlines and insurance are refusing to compensate saying that equipment should not have been in my checked luggage, yet I am not allowed to carry it on as my carry-on is already pushing weight limits with camera and computer gear. So would like to know what everyone else does when they travel?

Thanks

Anthony

Ha this reminds me a period years back, traveling to Egypt from UK (kinda after they had plane "troubles" over there). Basically every airline demanded you put every electronics (so laptops, cameras etc ) in hold, as opposed to carry on. Of course they also absolutely refused to take any responsibility for it. Insurers (including that one UK company that insures UW gear) also refused. Was a real limbo then xD

But in terms of your problem  - I cannot speak for the insurer, as that one will indeed depend on the contract signed, however airline cannot refuse compensation using "valuable items" excuse and is liable for every single item in your luggage, albeit only to a certain total sum. It is usually 1288 SDR (about 1600 EUR / 2300 CAD) as per the Montreal Convention, however US airlines are also governed by DOT and the limit is much higher, 3800 US (at least for domestic routes, I am not entirely sure if that limit will also apply to international or the US equivalent of 1288 SDR instead).
My assumption would be that this would classify as a "lost baggage", hence the below would apply.

(From an absolutely excellent page, very well covering NA (CA+US) and EU. I found it very helpful when dealing with a certain airline from that region, after it has lost my whole bag with all my dive gear inside (luckily found at the end but only because I flew 3 countries away to look at the airport myself, with no help from said airline). There is lots of practical guides, sample legal letters, as well as instructions how to file cases with small claims courts, sadly often the only resort against scummy airlines.)

https://airpassengerrights.ca/en/practical-guides/baggage/lost

 

And in regards to United trying to use the good old "valuables shouldn't be in the checked lugagge bla bla bla" excuse (note the DOT advisory link as well!):

https://airpassengerrights.ca/en/practical-guides/baggage/lost/faq

 

Quote

Can the airline exclude liability for the loss of electronics and/or valuables in its terms and conditions?

 

The airline is liable for loss of the contents of your checked baggage regardless of what the terms and conditions say. You should tell the airline that it must compensate you based on the following precedents:

• Muoneke v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 330 Fed. Appx. 457
• United States DOT Advisory (74 Fed. Reg. 14837-38)
• Société Air France, Violations of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention and 49 U.S.C. § 41712, Consent Order issued by the Department of Transportation, Docket OST 2010-0005
• Lukacs v. WestJet, Decision No. 477-C-A-2010
• Lukacs v. Air Canada, Decision. 291-C-A-2011

 

You can also find bits on wikihow:

https://www.wikihow.legal/Take-Action-for-Stolen-Airline-Luggage

 

Good luck and be persistent, that is the only thing that will get you anywhere. Airlines are not interested in helping you, for them getting rid of the customer equals resolving the issue, and that is often easiest done by either saying no, regardless of the law, or not even bothering to respond. Doing something actually helpful is seen as too bothersome to those poor little airlines, claiming tens of billions in government help every time a crisis shows up.

Edited January 8 by makar0n

[wildafrica 1]

3 hours ago, makar0n said:

Ha this reminds me a period years back, traveling to Egypt from UK (kinda after they had plane "troubles" over there). Basically every airline demanded you put every electronics (so laptops, cameras etc ) in hold, as opposed to carry on. Of course they also absolutely refused to take any responsibility for it. Insurers (including that one UK company that insures UW gear) also refused. Was a real limbo then xD

But in terms of your problem  - I cannot speak for the insurer, as that one will indeed depend on the contract signed, however airline cannot refuse compensation using "valuable items" excuse and is liable for every single item in your luggage, albeit only to a certain total sum. It is usually 1288 SDR (about 1600 EUR / 2300 CAD) as per the Montreal Convention, however US airlines are also governed by DOT and the limit is much higher, 3800 US (at least for domestic routes, I am not entirely sure if that limit will also apply to international or the US equivalent of 1288 SDR instead).
My assumption would be that this would classify as a "lost baggage", hence the below would apply.

(From an absolutely excellent page, very well covering NA (CA+US) and EU. I found it very helpful when dealing with a certain airline from that region, after it has lost my whole bag with all my dive gear inside (luckily found at the end but only because I flew 3 countries away to look at the airport myself, with no help from said airline). There is lots of practical guides, sample legal letters, as well as instructions how to file cases with small claims courts, sadly often the only resort against scummy airlines.)

https://airpassengerrights.ca/en/practical-guides/baggage/lost

 

And in regards to United trying to use the good old "valuables shouldn't be in the checked lugagge bla bla bla" excuse (note the DOT advisory link as well!):

https://airpassengerrights.ca/en/practical-guides/baggage/lost/faq

 

 

You can also find bits on wikihow:

https://www.wikihow.legal/Take-Action-for-Stolen-Airline-Luggage

 

Good luck and be persistent, that is the only thing that will get you anywhere. Airlines are not interested in helping you, for them getting rid of the customer equals resolving the issue, and that is often easiest done by either saying no, regardless of the law, or not even bothering to respond. Doing something actually helpful is seen as too bothersome to those poor little airlines, claiming tens of billions in government help every time a crisis shows up.

Wow, thanks for this info! I am about to take on United to see where my case lies and force somethng out of them. So all this info will go a long way in helping, I hope! Thank you ...

[TimG 62]

45 minutes ago, wildafrica said:

Wow, thanks for this info! I am about to take on United to see where my case lies and force somethng out of them. So all this info will go a long way in helping, I hope! Thank you ..

Good luck! And do keep us posted.