If the bean counters are to be believed, the average golfer only has a one in 12,500 chance of draining a hole-in-one. But despite this, thanks to a rather expensive local custom, aficionados in Japan protect themselves from such an eventuality with โHole-in-One insurance.โ
For context, in most Western golf-playing corners of the world, etiquette dictates anyone who makes a hole-in-one is expected to buy everyone back at the clubhouse a round of drinks (adherence not guaranteed). In the rigidly traditionbound Land of the Rising Sun, however, this notion is taken to a whole new level.
RELATED: How One Of The Worldโs Most Exclusive Golf Clubs Escapes Its $80 Million Tax Bill
As a way of sharing their good fortune and to avoid future misfortune, golfers are culturally obliged to celebrate their miraculous feat with a proper blowout: weโre talking champagne (or perhaps some decent sparkling), lavish feasts, gifts, tree-planting ceremonies, and whatnot for the lucky buggerโs golfing buddies.
Japanโs notorious hole-in-one festivities can sometimes result in a bill upwards of US$10,000 (AU$15,500). Hence the need for โHole-in-One insurance.โ
According to Knowledge Stew, โHole-in-One insuranceโ first came about in Japan circa 1982, shortly after the local customโs widespread adoption which โ incidentally โ occurred during the countryโs massive economic boom; and was provided by the Kyoei Fire & Marine Insurance company.
RELATED: What Happens If You Get A Hole-In-One At The Ultra-Exclusive Augusta Golf Club
These days, approximately 30 Japanese insurers provide roughly ยฅ500,000 (AU$5,000) worth of coverage in exchange for ยฅ6,900 (AU$69) per year. To date, an estimated 40% of Japanese golfers retain an active hole-in-one insurance policy as a safeguard against being out of pocket when the time comes.
Itโs worth noting that while hole-in-one insurance for individual golfers is indeed unique to Japan, a similar concept exists elsewhere โ including here in Australia. Formally referred to as โPrize Indemnity Insurance,โ the key difference is it covers organisations that plan on offering something juicy (and potentially expensive) during a competition-like event.
Better to have it and not need it as opposed to the other way around, I suppose.
