 Poster: A snowHead
|
Regarding Carte Neige cover.
Carte neige/carrie neige get you home as well, they even take care of the hospital, get you a refund on your lift pass etc. Have a read of the details of my friends accident over on my Les Arcs group facebook page. It is public access so you do not have to sign up for facebook to view it. Link is below.
Most of the difference between the costs for medical and rescue which are covered by CN is covered with your EHIC and costs you only 18 euro a day extra. You get all the rest back. So money wise, it is better than the excess you have to pay on most policies. If you are injured in a resort, you must tell them you are with CN and then they give you the same treatment as a French citizen. You must claim back anything you have paid out.
Regarding outside France, yes there is a limit, but I have never heard of it not being enough for the rescue and basic medical treatment. After that in European countries the EHIC takes over, even in Switzerland. I think the only place it could be a problem is in the USA. So for me it still seems the cheapest good option.
To give an example, I will talk specifically about France as that is where I once made a claim myself. Never had any problem being taken to a clinic first then onto the hospital. All bills were payed through CN and so was transport home. They even arranged for my car to be taken home. From a medical point a view I think CN does the job together with your health card. In France they treat you just the same as a French national. Seemed that way to me anyway. I was not asked to pay any extra at the end, between the carte neige and the EHIC all seemed to be covered.
For claiming for flights and the like, I have the travel insurance with my credit card which is almost free and covers everything I need, flights booked, bags etc. Plus my home insurance covers skis and the more expensive items I do not want to loose. So for a season in the Alps I pay a total of 55 Euros and I think £2 per month fixed charge on the credit card. For me that works very well and is very cheap. By the way, people need to check that there Winter Insurance covers helicopter rescue, not all do. Read the small print. CN does with no limit in France.
OK, if you have a family then you need to have your kids and all that gear covered as well, but I think if I needed that I could have a family policy on my credit card. The kids would have carte neige anyway. If a person is willing to put the effort into looking around, there are similar systems in Austria and Switzerland. Not sure about Italy. If you use the one in the country you go to, then the outside France limit for CN would not matter with the card for the country you are going to. Remember anyone reading this, I am only talking about Europe.
If anyone is interested in reading this report, then please visit my Les Arcs facebook info page. It shows you just how the CN works in practice in France. Sorry it is prefered not to have the report posted here and I respect that
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
For those wondering, medical repatriation is covered and I was given three seats as I could not use only one. Another person I know had medivac home, cost them nothing extra either.
As I said before, carte neige/carrie neige are for medical and rescue insurance best used in France where there are no limits. They also have extra things like ski cover, lift pass cover, getting your car home, getting your kids home plus a few other things but you need to read it all for yourself.
I think it is a very good system. I use it, my friends use it and my family use it. I will recommend it to anyone as an alternative or an addition to any other insurance, but I have no other motivation. No I am not on commision Just think for me it does the job.
Now that this thread is updated for Carte Neige, which does give very good cover off piste including helicopter rescue (but with limits outside France), I shall share the details of other companies which have been posted on my group page and the authors have agreed I may do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I've not read every post in this thread and appreciate this is a discussion forum but i'm seriously concerned that people reading this thread might actually consider this to be advice and base their decision to purchase insurance from a particualr provider on this. As many of you may know, i work for a specialist sports insurance broker, i've recently been involved in the development of a travel product for competitve/professional sportsmen and women, including wintersports so i do have some relevant experience.
The only people who can explain the intention of the policy wording, its limitations and benefits, and upon whose advice you can rely is either the broker or the underwriter themselves. If you require clarification on a particular point of the contract, ask them, get them to confirm it in writing. If the handler on the end of the phone cant answer your query ask for it to be referred on, then get it confirmed in writing. Also by speaking to an underwriter or broker there is the potential to have your contract endorsed to specifically cover the activity you want to do.
You have to remember the majority of travel insurance contracts are designed for the masses, if you are doing something a little out of the ordinary you need to do as much research into your insurance as you would in deciding what equipment to take etc.
dreamguides, in one of your earlier posts you mention you want to be able to recommend an insurer, be careful you dont stray into regulated activity by doing this. You would be safer telling you clients to talk to their insurers and give them details of your expertise etc as a guide to discuss with the underwriters rather than suggesting a carrier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| snobunni wrote: |
I've not read every post in this thread and appreciate this is a discussion forum but i'm seriously concerned that people reading this thread might actually consider this to be advice and base their decision to purchase insurance from a particualr provider on this. As many of you may know, i work for a specialist sports insurance broker, i've recently been involved in the development of a travel product for competitve/professional sportsmen and women, including wintersports so i do have some relevant experience.
The only people who can explain the intention of the policy wording, its limitations and benefits, and upon whose advice you can rely is either the broker or the underwriter themselves. If you require clarification on a particular point of the contract, ask them, get them to confirm it in writing. If the handler on the end of the phone cant answer your query ask for it to be referred on, then get it confirmed in writing. Also by speaking to an underwriter or broker there is the potential to have your contract endorsed to specifically cover the activity you want to do.
You have to remember the majority of travel insurance contracts are designed for the masses, if you are doing something a little out of the ordinary you need to do as much research into your insurance as you would in deciding what equipment to take etc.
dreamguides, in one of your earlier posts you mention you want to be able to recommend an insurer, be careful you dont stray into regulated activity by doing this. You would be safer telling you clients to talk to their insurers and give them details of your expertise etc as a guide to discuss with the underwriters rather than suggesting a carrier. |
You are right to point out the regulatory issues but I would say that they apply to people making advised sales not to people discussing it on a forum like this - especially since some of the commentators are not even UK resident and cannot buy the very cover they are discussing (weird?) Can't see the FSA getting too excited about it even though, technically, they could take an interest of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
snobunni, I think you have made some good points and I have been careful to say a number of times in my comments that this is what suits me when talking about what I use, it is up to others to make there own minds up and read the small print.
As you say you work in the industry, do you have any inside knowledge you would care to share with us regarding why the wording of many policies are always so woolly. You mention speaking to underwriters etc, but my friends that have done that tell me it is really hard to get clear answers from any of them. Even the written ones that have been posted here are wide open to different ways of reading into what they say. Not very comforting for many people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
To demonstrate what I mean, here is a statement from Direct Travel.
When you ski off piste within Europe you do not need to be with a locally qualified guide, you can ski any where within Europe so long as there isn’t a local authority warning against skiing in that particular part.
All reasonable precautions to avoid injury should be taken for example using appropriate and customary safety equipment on all occasions whilst participating in any sports of hazardous activities.
If the local authority are advising not to ski in a particular area because the risk is too high and you decide to ski there anyway we would not be able to provide cover for you because you are going against their advice.
If the avalanche warnings do not indicate that there is a significant risk then you will be covered to take part in winter sports activities but you will need to ensure you take full precautionary measures wherever possible and you carry full avalanche safety equipment with yourselves when applicable whilst skiing/snowboarding.
So my interpretation of this is, yet another company saying, do not ski in avalanche level 4 (significant risk) and you must always carry avalanche safety equipment on all occasions when off piste.
Snobunni, as someone in the industry, what is you take on the wording, would be interested to know either here on the thread or by PM if you prefer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowcrazy, just want to check - are you saying that you want verification that you are covered to go off-piste when the avalanche risk is 4?
Rather than wait for your answer I suspect that is what you are asking - a non-grey definition that says 4 is OK but 5 is not? I do not see how an insurer can make that decision for you or anyone else when the wording of the European and North American scales of risk are so descriptive, basically saying that an avalanche is "likely" (even though in reality it may well not be likely for the slope you're on). How would they look if they said it was OK knowing that a universally-accepted scale was saying otherwise. I fully accept that many people go out when the level is 4 and come to no harm but I think you are being unrealistic if you're hoping to get commitment from an insurer about it. What does the Carte Neige wording say?
As I have said before, luckily resorts are pretty good at saving people from themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, as I asked before, are you in the insurance buisness as your replies do make me wonder  .
As to your question, although I was asking directly to snowbunni as she has said insurance is her job, my question is somewhat broader. Yes it would be nice for the Insurance people to say yes, level 4 is ok, but what I am after is for them to try and understand that whilst one slope is safe, another is not and the way there insurance is worded should reflect that fact. Not make it appear that when it is Level 4 conditions all off piste is out. Very hard to do I agree, but possible I would think. They are very clever with words after all.
I also think they need to be more staight forward about the kit you carry, not try to cover all options. Just say yes you should always have your kit, then everyone knows where they stand, none of this grey area.
Finally skiing without a guide, even guides make mistakes as happened only a few days ago. Very sad indeed so early in the season. But my point is, going off piste is something many more people are doing. Again , they need to find a way to say that if you know an area well and have the experience, you will be covered in a clear and easy to understand way. Difficult questions I have put to answer I agree, but it would be interesting to see how they are dealt with.
Must go, will be back tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
So my interpretation of this is, yet another company saying, do not ski in avalanche level 4
|
I really think it might be best (for all of us...) if you have a conversation with an underwriter about this if you want an accurate answer. You're assuming that they mean "significant" in the technical, avalanche warning sense of the word. Not an unreasonable assumption, but I still wouldn't bet that you're right...they may just mean significant in the dictionary sense (yes, this would be careless wording). The responses I saw a while ago from DirectTravel (probably somewhere earlier on this thread) were more ambiguous, and to my mind more sensible.
And as for people with vested interests, are you sure you don't work for the Carte Neige organisation in some capacity?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, i may be misinterpreting what Dreamguides was saying and it may just be a matter of semantics but they said they wanted to be able to recommend and insurer, whilst not necessarily recieving any remmuneration for this they should still be careful, as the general test used to determine whther or not regulatory territory has been entered into is 'would the contract exist without the intervention of the third party'. If Dreamguides researched the market, decided on a provider and told their clients to contact said insurer they are ok, they sit just outside the regulation, however, if dreamguides were to pass their clients details onto their preferred provider who would then contact them for a quote, this is acting as and Introducer and without authourisation is a criminal offence. Hence my advice to be careful and be sure of what you are doing and what you shouldnt get involved in. Having just been interviewed by the FSA as part of an ARROW visit, the flow of information and 'source' of business is something the FSA are very cute on.
snowcrazy, the general consensus from 'consumers' is that insurance policy wordings are already too long and wordy. The majority of travel insurance policies arent aimed at the more adventurous of us, hence you need to speak to underwriters to explain how you would like the policy to perform and see if they accept the risk on that basis. Insurance does not cover every eventuality, and the fact you are covered by an insurance policy should not cause you to change your actions, ie you should always behave as if you are not insured. Sorry if you think i'm giving another woolly answer but i'm a compliance officer (i look after the regulatory side of things) not a wordings technician. The extract you have quoted seems clear to me, if the risk is significant, you are not insured. If a grading of level 4 is described as significant then you will not be insured. If you are looking for a policy to cover you when the risk is significant you will need to demonstrate to the underwriter that your personal skill and experience is such that you can mitigate the risk of something happening, which to be honest i'm not sure how you would do that in terms of avalanche risk and i certainly doubt it would be possible with the main stream travel insurers, it just isnt in their interests to cover high risk activities such as this. You would need to go with a specialist policy no doubt written specifically for you and your activities.
In respect of the distinction between with a guide and without, this is no indication that is is necessarily safer with a guide it is simply that if you are with a guide and something does happen your insurers have the right to subrogate against the guides insurers and recover their costs.
In summary my advice stands, if you are unclear if the policy covers you for something, ask the underwriter, get an answer (sometimes you need to push for clarification) then get it in writing. A hassle i know, but you take out insurance for peace of mind so make that coupel of extra calls to get it if you are being more adventurous than the average skier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
snobunni, really interesting reply. Thanks.
Perhaps what has been written before was not clear enough, but to clarify. The questions that were asked by my friends were very specific as you have suggested in your summary. The replies they were sent at first were still far from helpful. They did then follow up the replies and in some cases after maybe 5 or 6 emails and/or phone calls, in others less, they were sent slightly clearer responses. It is these final responses that are posted here.
When it comes to where you can ski in level 4 (in fact any level), what kit must you take, how much experience do they mean by enough, who is responsible for giving local authority advice etc, they still just want to keep there options open even when given very detailed descriptions of what we will be doing as you had suggested. Not very satisfactory.
Even after being pushed very hard to be clear, very few have been. So my question to you now is, what would you advise them to do next, so far the woolly descriptions are wide open and could lead to a challenge in court if they did not pay out as has happened in Tignes a while ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
snowcrazy, snobunni, here's what I posted back in January of my conversations with Direct Travel, including background specific scenarios and their reply
| GrahamN wrote: |
As I'm also with Direct Travel, and came up for renewal this week, I followed this with interest. So I had a go myself.
| GrahamN wrote: |
Off-piste Skiing
This is covered, without a guide and outside of ski areas within Europe, with the proviso that it is not "skiing against local authority warning or advice". My question is what exclusions do the quoted words cover.
As you are no doubt aware, avalanche status reports are issued throughout the Alps (e.g. by the French weather service), on a scale of 1-5. There is never a level below 1, so there is always a warning level of some variety in place. For about 50% of the time the level is at 3, which is classed as "considerable", i.e. consideration has to be given to the possibility of avalanches. Some slopes will be dangerous, others will pose very little risk. The avalanche report may also include comments about lower or higher risk slopes (e.g. altitude bands of particular instability, or e.g. higher risk on east/west facing slopes), but would very rarely ever tell you not to ski a specific slope. Outside of the patrolled areas there will be no slopes that are specifically closed. At level 4 the risk is much higher, but certain slopes will also be safe to ski with knowledge and care.
I am a skier who always travels with the appropriate safety equipment (transceiver, shovel, probe etc), have attended a number of avalanche awareness courses, and have spent many weeks skiing with guides, gaining experience of snowpack assessment and how to travel in avalanche-risk terrain (spacing out skiers, avoidance of terrain traps, assessment of snow layers etc.). I of course do not have the level of training or depth of experience of a qualified guide.
So my questions are:
If I am skiing with a qualified guide (normally UIAGM qualified), would I be covered if he (and I) thought the terrain safe, even at warning level 4 (at level 5 no-one but a madman, or possibly a very skilled professional, would ski off-piste)? Would I also be covered for skiing without a guide on the safer slopes at this warning level (at this level I would only consider skiing shallower slopes pretty close to the main pistes, without overhead dangers)?
If I am skiing without a qualified guide, would I be covered for skiing at level 3, after taking appropriate consideration for the local snow conditions? Is it considered that the "local authority warnings" in this case assist me in making a sensible evaluation of the risk. Or does the simple existence of a level 3 warning of itself constitute a "local authority warning" preventing skiing. If so, what about a level 2?
|
Their response was very similar to wordings received by snowbunny.
| Direct Travel wrote: |
| we take a common sense approach to our off piste skiing. We do not have any mention of avalanche warnings within our documentation, you would need to be guided by the local advice (any of the emergency services, mountain rescue, ski resort employees such as ski guides instructors), i.e. is the area deemed too dangerous for skiing? If there are any doubts as to the safety of the area you wish to ski in, and there is nobody in authority to ask, do not ski there. |
It's not as categorical as it could be, but as I'm a less cynical person than her  , I actually take their answer at face value and I think it's not a bad one. I think the important point here is "is the area deemed [by mountain rescue, emergency services etc] too dangerous for skiing?". If so, well you shouldn't be skiing there anyway. If not then you're OK to proceed, with appropriate care. You're not going to get anyone to say categorically "yes you're fine" for all circumstances, unless they are of such low risk as to make the risk coverage pointless. If you insist on taking a more legalistic approach, you're only going to get the worst possible case. As I'm actually fairly happy with that response, I've renewed with them for the next year. |
As I said back in Jan, their reply did allow a bit of wiggle-room, but I don't think they can possibly be more definite than that. For more certainty they would have to be sending a guide assessor out with you (actually most probably without your knowledge) to do an individual assessment of your abilities at snowpack assessment etc., before deciding whether you were an acceptable risk. And let's not forget that injuries/rescues are not always (or even mainly - anyone have any figures to back up relative incidence/risk of insurable events?) caused by avalanches - so they should probably also be assessing your technical ability in bumps, steeps etc. relative to the terrain you normally ski. The bottom line is whether the communications you (or, where threads and fora like these come in useful, anyone else) have had with the insurance company leads to the belief that they will assess what happened fairly or not. If you were in a position where being caught in an avalanche was all but unavoidable, they'll want to (in my view justifiably) have room to deny the claim. But if you happen to have been unlucky, and get caught despite exercising your critical faculties, then there should be confidence that they will pay out. The replies from Direct Travel, my experiences with them in the past, and the claims histories reported on this forum, give me no reason to doubt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GrahamN, thanks, good post(s). I don't do as gnarly as you but, mindful of the fact that even a little bit off piste is off piste, I also insure with Direct Travel (and I do get CN in France as well, possibly unnecessarily, but it's so cheap that one might just as well.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Snowcard 4 me every time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
From the legal prospective, here is an extract from another post I made on another forum.
'What is interesting is that with the improvement of equipment design it is making it more possible for more people to go off piste. A fact that Insurance companies are starting to be concerned about. With an increasing number of people going off piste the number of accidents is also likely to increase. Until now, on piste collision has and I think will still be the highest risk, but that does not mean we should not consider how to make ourselves safer off piste. Thinking it will never happen to me is a grave mistake.
It has been confirmed by a friend in correspondence he has had with underwriters and brokers that some the Insurance companies are currently reviewing the wording of there policies in line with the changing number of people venturing off piste.
Henry's Avalanche company are now also taking a look at this change as they have evidence that in Val d'Isere some Insurance companies have started to refuse payment for rescues. A very worrying fact.
Going off piste without the whole group carrying the right kit is not safe. In my opinion it might be considered negligent and now some insurance companies might use it as grounds for not paying up.
Likewise not having a good knowledge of an area, yet going off piste there, could equally expose you to being refused compensation.
In French law: Article 121-3 du CODE PENAL which has now been modified a number of times. It is clear that you must not expose others to unnecessary risk as the leader of a party.
According to reports published under the title, 'responsibilities penale et activities sportive and touristic.' They have outlined a number of cases where such actions as going into areas which were deemed unsafe, the groups not having the correct equipment or the level of those not suitable to go somewhere has resulted in prosecutions. Serious concerns for anyone going off piste or even on difficult pistes with others less able than yourself where you could be seen 'as responsible' as the most experienced person present.
Some interesting points to consider when trying to stay safe on or off piste with others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
For those that have not read the snow news section. Here is the link posted for details of the case in Switzerland regarding off piste.
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0995-swiss-prosecution-could-impact-off-piste-skiing/?gid=995000
It is exactly because of these type of cases that we need to be discussing this topic.
Seems most think that, yes the piste should have been protected by the pisteurs or both the piste and the near off piste should have been closed if there was a high risk at that time of day. However, the skiers did use bad judgement by going there in those conditions. But then, so were others including ski school so rather hard to prove negilgence I would have thought.
The talk here is of the authorities wanting a ruling on the books to make further cases easier. Do people know that if you are found guilty of criminal act then your Insurance can agrue that they are not liable and will not pay up. Same thing could apply to SCGB case where the guy died off piste in Verbier whilst being lead by a Rep. In this case, nobody died, but a girl was buried and dug out.
Makes use (those I had lunch with today) all think, skiing near to the piste, off piste has some even more serious problems, should something go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| It is exactly because of these type of cases that we need to be discussing this topic. |
The Swiss thing certainly opens a can o' worms but it most definitely isn't an insurance issue first and foremost. If there was no such thing as insurance would the same things happen... Yes, they most certainly would. Insurance is merely the financial instrument that helps mop up the financial damage AFTER someone has been injured/killed etc. So, the reason to be discussing the topic is to talk about prevention not cure. The issue, as far as the Swiss are concerned, sounds like it's about the apportionment of blame and the criminal liability being aimed at the three doctors who seem to have triggered the slide. Sounds like someone got badly hurt so, for them, the issue of whether or not those responsible for triggering the slide were insured to be doing what they were doing, is almost irrelevant compared to the life-changing consequences.
So, to touch on insurance again... What the insurance industry worry about are those people who do things because they think they're insured to do it not because they are actually qualified to be doing it. In the case of scuba diving, specialist dive policies specify that someone can dive to their "qualified depth" unless they are undergoing training to qualify for deeper. They also specify use of dive computer and other safety precautions. So, divers absolutely know where they stand. There is no equivalent to PADI for off-piste skiing other than professional guide qualifications and modules of instructor qualifications. Perhaps that's what's needed, then the insurance position could be made clear(er).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Apart fronm the case above and the one involving SCGB reps I wonder how many more cases are coming to court regarding behaviour 'off piste' does anyone know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Boredsurfing, There are quite a few either past or present. Doing the research for the stuff I posted above was quite interesting. As it was all in French I did have help, but there are well over 100 cases in recent years with some still pending just in our region.
The pisteurs on our side of the mountain, whilst not liking the idea of to many regulations, do seem to think the situation needs controling better. There advice, if you do not know the place, go with someone that does or pay for a guide and never go off piste without the right kit. To many people, 'follow tracks', there words. In Les Arcs that can be a real problem with all the kiters (speed flying) people about.
Bode Swiller: I agree with you this time, the accident and now the court case is not firstly an Insurance matter, but should they be found guilty then it will become a major test case the article already says that should this be the result the costs will be claimed back from those that were involved. So, not only would they have the guilt of what happened to deal with, but likely be bankrupt as well. Very worrying in both situations.
Regarding the Padi comparision, I am in fact a master diver qualified to rescue dive and deep wreck dive. I think they have a good system and it is very clear what you can and cannot do. Might be a good idea to have some system for off piste, but many people would not like the mountains to be regulated in that way.
There is in fact another case pending in Switzerland as we speak, a trend that people need to think about during this coming season. The Swiss also consider it negligent to not carry the basic safety kit. See article below.
From another forum, an excellent acticle worth reading, my thanks to the person there for finding this: http://www.powderguide.com/magazin.php?ID_Sub=2778&display=833
Use a translate site if you do not read German. Some very good points as it is written by a lawyer and mountain guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
As there will be people going to Henry's Avalanche talks this month. Here is a breakdown of the avalanche scale.
There does seem to be some confusion as to how to interpret the wording used by the Insurance companies regarding avalanche levels, here is a guide to what the Avalanche scale says. The details are taken from the document with the following link.
http://avalanche.state.co.us/pub/images/Publications/Greene_etal_issw06.pdf and reproduced in another thread on J2ski.
The real problem as I see it is trying to get the Insurance companies to use the same wording so that it is clear for all to understand. Maybe in the future they will start to do this. Might be a good question to ask at the talks if you get the chance.
Avalanche Risk Scale
Every modern ski resort will issue notices (bulletins) indicating the level of Avalanche Risk for each day. These risk levels are generally quoted from a five-point scale of increasing risk (of avalanche).
If you plan to ski or snowboard off-piste it is essential that you understand the Avalanche Risk Level for each local area and plan your skiing accordingly.
Five Levels of Avalanche Risk
The following Table summarises the five levels of Avalanche Risk. Note the absence of a Level Zero - there is NEVER zero risk of avalanche; except when there is no snow at all. We use the term "skier" below to indicate anyone on the snow - skier, snowboarder, climber or walker. Avalanches don't choose.
Avalanche Risk Level French Flag U.S. Color Code Snowpack Stability Avalanche probability
1 Low Risk Generally well bonded and stable. Triggering is possible by groups of skiers on a few very steep extreme slopes. Small natural avalanches (sluffs) are possible. 'Yellow Flag'
2 Moderate Less well bonded on some steep slopes, otherwise generally well bonded. Triggering is possible by groups of skiers, particularly on steep slopes. Large natural avalanches may occur but are not likely. 'Yellow Flag'
3 Considerable Moderately to weakly bonded on many steep slopes. Triggering is possible, even by individual skiers. The bulletin may indicate many slopes which are particularly affected. Medium and occasionally large natural avalanches may occur. 'Yellow and Black Flag'
4 High Weakly bonded in most places. Triggering is likely, even with single skiers, on many steep slopes. Frequent medium or large sized avalanches are likely.'Yellow and Black Flag'
5 Very High
(Extreme) Weakly bonded and largely unstable. Numerous large natural avalanches are likely, even on moderately steep terrain.
'Black Flag'
The What, Where and What to do
The following are taken from the U.S. Avalanche Danger Descriptors and give a useful summary of each level - and how you should adapt your off-piste route planning accordingly.
Danger Level Avalanche Probability and Avalanche Trigger Degree and Distribution of Avalanche Danger Recommended Action in the back country
WHAT WHY WHERE WHAT TO DO
1 Low Risk Natural avalanches very unlikely. Skier-triggered avalanches unlikely. Generally stable snow. Isolated areas of instability. Travel is generally safe. Normal caution advised.
2 Moderate Natural avalanches unlikely. Skier-triggered avalanches possible. Unstable slabs possible on steep terrain. Use caution in steeper terrain on certain aspects (defined in accompanying statement).
3 Considerable Natural avalanches possible. Skier-triggered avalanches probable. Unstable slabs probable on steep terrain. Be increasingly cautious in steeper terrain.
4 High Natural and human triggered avalanches likely. Unstable slabs likely on a variety of aspects and slope angles. Travel in avalanche terrain is not recommended. Safest travel on windward ridges of lower angle slopes without steeper terrain above.
5 Very High
(Extreme) Widespread natural or human triggered avalanches certain. Extremely unstable slabs certain on most aspects and slope angles. Large destructive avalanches possible. Travel in avalanche terrain should be avoided and travel confined to low angle terrain well away from avalanche path run-outs.
I hope that helps to make it a little clearer for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| Bode Swiller: I agree with you this time, the accident and now the court case is not firstly an Insurance matter, but should they be found guilty then it will become a major test case the article already says that should this be the result the costs will be claimed back from those that were involved. So, not only would they have the guilt of what happened to deal with, but likely be bankrupt as well. Very worrying in both situations. |
Well, I imagine people feel guilt/regret/whatever regardless of a court case. Are you saying though, that Ski Club Leaders need to be aware that they could be held personally financially liable if there's an accident and the court decides that they have to cough up the costs/compensation? If that were true then why would anyone want to be a SCGB Leader? I reckon the Club must indemnify them via insurance or directly.
That European Scale... looks to be slightly different wording to the one I am familiar with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, regarding ski club, I am sure they must have insurance for there leaders, but as I am not a lawyer and I do not know if it would still cover somebody if they are found guilty of criminal negligence. You need to ask a lawyer that question. Interesting one mind.
If this is different from the wording you have seen for the European Scale, please post it here with a reference to the source as I have done. It would be interesting to know if it has been changed since this was published back in 2006 I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well my Google translator gave me this:
Despite proper planning and adapted behavior during a tour and although avalanche accidents fortunately very rarely happen - an accident can never be ruled out. For everyone involved, this represents a bad situation - in addition to the issue of personal debt is potentially a concern for injured or even friends to mourn her death. in an avalanche are people injured or killed, the local police authority is required to determine the reasons and causes of the accident. And these investigations take place actually. There are, for example, both in Germany and in Austria, specially trained police officers, which are used for the education of mountain and avalanche accidents. One can assume that virtually every leading avalanche accident involving personal injury (assault or killing) to a criminal investigation.
The purpose of this investigation is the question of whether the avalanche was caused by a negligent misconduct of one or more persons and whether the person (s) can therefore be held criminally responsible.
The considerations of criminal law can be very detailed and difficult to understand for laymen, hard. Not every avalanche accident is a crime. At the same time but you have to say goodbye to the mistaken belief that, under the high mountains in principle "other" legal rules than, say, in traffic or on the sports field. Unfortunately, quite often lawyers decide to mountain accidents from the traffic is still relatively much idea of a sports field and at least still have some youthful memory, have the "free riding" but never heard. That does not make things easier, but all the more unpredictable.
Since the common law practice, as appropriate, and alpine country where the accident happened, is different, here only some general advice and information should, where be submitted therefore tried to sketch using typical groups of cases, the range of criminal issues.
Own risk, stranger danger and injury of third parties
Each free rider can put themselves at will, without him we can therefore make a complaint. Who thinks to do without avalanche warnings and without LVS set can, and believe apply that warning and stop signs only for others, who runs an original, albeit completely idiotic risk management. Criminal law is however not forbidden - as long as nothing happens. Whether this is a reasonable way of dealing with the problem, of course, is another matter.
However, here again the principle applies: No rule without exception. In Italy, provides the legal situation, that could endanger the already constitutes a crime of ski runs. So who in the free skiing at fault, that is at least negligent, causing an avalanche, which covers an underlying slope is liable to prosecution - are violated even if no skiers on the ski slopes or even killed. When is injured by the avalanche killed a skier or even, should the possible criminality of the Free Riders obvious to everyone - as long as the Free Rider avalanche triggered by negligence.
When you have triggered an avalanche of negligence?
This question is sweeping answer is not practical, the lawyer then usually begins with the introductory sentence: "That depends on whether ...". This question can in fact be judged only by considering all the circumstances of the case. One has to but found clear: employ the longer highly qualified professionals with the theme avalanche danger, offer more intense alpine institutions and further education and the better the avalanche reports and risk management methods for assessing the avalanche danger, the more difficult it will be the To qualify as an individual avalanche completely unforeseeable event, the Tour would have even with careful preparation and route planning is not recognized and can be avoided, too. In other words, if you want to be called to an accident that the avalanche can not be predicted and therefore not caused by negligence, was required to have good arguments, such as a low avalanche warnings and a positive risk-Check after one of the recognized risk management methods (eg, Munters 3x3 & reduction method or Stop-or-go). If you look after these dates and checks in the "green zone" moves, the probability is very high that you can in the case of an avalanche accident refute the allegation of negligence.
Risk community, and de facto leader
If free riders together in the backcountry or in the freeride area on the move, it can involve a so-called risk community. A risk community is when the group members have substantially the same knowledge and training levels, and therefore assess the risks of essentially the same well can. In this case, every freerider responsible for himself and in the case of an avalanche accident also "own fault".
However, this is a rather theoretical ideal. Namely, the practice is often different. Not infrequently, one of the participants of the group swings to the "Guide" button. Frequently shall have a "leader" of any sound education, only his willingness to take risks and his athletic ability, perhaps in combination with a "Leitwolfmentalität" to leave him as leader. Whether it is actually a "leader" in the legal sense is responsible for the safety of the other free riders from the group always depends on the circumstances of the case. Not every one who lies down a cool appearance or the best riders in the group must take the rap criminal, if something happens. You have to know, however, that there are also the so-called "de facto leader," which may well have an increased responsibility to the other group members.
De facto leader can be, for example, people who take their training and experience, such as a snowboard or ski instructors, friends and other people on non-commercial basis with the mountains. Your companion will assume that they are from their "leaders" out safely. A typical situation is the "persuasion" of a less experienced "Free Riders" to a sophisticated variant of departure on the grounds that you yourself have this be an "experienced" Free Rider "full control" and the other be sure that everything is ok. This is created when different confidence on security - and this trust committed to the de facto leader, to provide the promised security, too.
That does not mean that just because you completed such as a training ride, can not go free riding with his friends, if they have no training. But if you promise to his friends with an explicit reference to their own safety training, one must also be aware that they rely on the announcements too - and leave according to accepted legal principles it should. Anyone who is entrusted to a de facto leader, not independently, but will rely on risk management of the de facto leader.
Commercial guided tours
If you close on a guided tour, such as a freeride course, a snowboard or ski tour, you can trust is a specially trained experts to: a state-certified mountain and ski guide. It is responsible for the safety of his paying guests. However, one must be aware, be that a guide can offer its customers not 100%-owned security as it is known to be in the mountains before.
Equipment
The question of the "right" equipment is not only a constant theme in the alpine safety issue but also a "classic" in the legal fight of mountain and avalanche accidents. Who does not use adequate equipment is negligent if the accident with the "right" equipment could have been avoided or at least the consequences would have been less dramatic.
The equipment issue only becomes relevant when a person is liable for the accident because it was responsible by reason of special circumstances for the safety of another person. When I am alone without transceiver off-road, which is only my problem, especially when I am buried. When two experienced mountain guides spontaneously decide to start a day of skiing slopes with a variant of departure in the fresh powder snow, although it has no avalanche transceivers, that is their free choice. And if either is buried by a snow board and then by his
Colleagues located not and can not be salvaged, one can only say - went stupid, but not punishable.
Who is responsible for third parties, however, whether as a "de facto officer" or a "real" leader is also responsible for selecting and driving the necessary safety equipment including an appropriate control function. Standard is the beacon set, consisting of avalanche transceiver, probe and shovel. In doing so the person responsible with the safety equipment can handle, for a serious incident is one in an avalanche burial every second.
Practical recommendations
Regardless of the question of legal risks should always carefully about who you go down the hills and who you with it. The expertise and equipment is the other one's back while namely security are outstanding dar. Many people in the fun park or at the snow. From a good freeride but also other qualities such as responsibility and awareness of risk, reliability, competence and "Snow-how, intuition, and caution, that is called a smart" risk management ".
Stefan Beulke, advocate and guide
Dr. Stefan Beulke
is an attorney since 1990 and a certified mountain guide since 1985.
He was 2nd Chairman of the Venture Development Bonds (Association of German mountain guide) from 1992 to 2003.
As a lawyer, he specializes in mountain and skiing accidents.
Stefan Beulke has written for PowderGuide this chapter on free-riding, avalanches and criminal law, which appeared in the third edition of the powder guide book.
If the author is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then clearly you need to be careful if you are a "de facto" leader!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Snowcard has changed. I just tried to renew my season cover. They don't offer the same product. I used to just get level 4 sports cover for the winter season. The now offer single or annual multitrip insurance. The level concept is changed to a choice of leisure, adventure, max adventure, extreme adventure etc.. Adventure offers only "Includes upto 4 weeks of winter sports activities – cross country, piste and slack country, park and pipe". 4 weeks isn't enough for me, WTH is slack country ? I would need to opt for "extreme
adventure" to get more than 4 weeks, it makes it too expensive to cover my off piste dabbling.
I now preety hacked off wading though pages of t&c.
Looks like I'll have to give direct-travel a go unless anyone has a better idea 
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I was with Dog Tag for quite a few years as I windsurf as well abroad and it seemed to cover most of my what we do (Wife & I) however after an accident last year where I was damn sure I would not be covered if push came to shove I'm looking at my options.
And please, please correct me if I'm wrong but BMC seem to be the only insurance that will cover me for what I do and that I trust might actually pay out, not that I want to go there!
Two aspects
One - Off Piste Powder Skiing - so there will always be an avalanche warning of at least 3 in force maybe more after a fresh dump - though this skiing will tend to be in between pistes / resort area and what concerns me more
Two - Ski Touring on my own - I'm not about to go off on my lonesome if conditions are prohibitive - I'm talking classic Spring Skiing - going up on my own and skiing back down - more worried if I do something stupid and prang myself and need to be helied off
Have looked at BMC for 6 weeks for me and the wife and it's about £250
Any views, and yes I know ski touring on your own can be deemed stupid, but it's what I do and many others do it, I treat it the same way as cycling / running /windsurfing on my own
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lechbob wrote: |
WTH is slack country?
|
Heheh, it's a bit like back country but without the need for any hiking. Also known as side country...
Weathercam, I'm not convinced by the posts above that suggest that you're automatically not covered at avvy level 4 - I don't think insurance companies can afford to be as categorical as that (see GrahamN's post above). I'm not as up to speed on touring cover, as that's not something I do much (any) of...I don't think what you're asking for is a huge level of risk, though, so I'd have thought some of the off-the-shelf providers (i.e. bigger names than BMC) ought to have something to suit you. I'd suggest DirectTravel, but I don't want to sound like an advert for them - must be other options!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Weathercam, Rather than bore everyone by repeating all that has been posted about this already. If you want to read what has been said in summary about BMC and Direct travel cover for off piste. Go to my facebook Les Arcs Ski and Snowboard info group Insurance discussion section and read what the companies have said.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=134900026541300&topic=150
You should find the answers to all your questions there. Or read through all the pages here as most stuff is on here as well now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
ChrisWo, more ambiguous, and to my mind more sensible.
How can this be a correct statement. It just leads to more confusion, using ambiguous wording is half the problem with all these get out clauses. Most of the quotes I have posted are direct from people in contact with the Underwriters. Go and have a look at what is posted on my discussion section on facebook. (Link below)
As for side country, in the Alps you are either off piste or on piste, I have never seen a 'not needing to hike' or 'side country' wording in anything I have ever read using that term. Could you post the policy or a reference to it so we can read how they use this term, it also seems very misleading.
Very interesting to see that Snowcard have changed there wording now as they said they were reviewing there wording when asked about this earlier in September. I wonder how many other companies are doing the same thing. Worth people reading the small print when there policies come through or that they have not been amended after they took them out. They are allowed to do this I believe. But I hope on the last point I am wrong as it seems very unfair if they can do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Lechbob, Read what is posted above about Direct travel and be sure that they do give you the cover you want. Someone posted that with there wording, they could say that even avalanche level 3 is to risky. Not sure if that is true but worth checking up on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
ChrisWo, more ambiguous, and to my mind more sensible.
How can this be a correct statement.
|
Ok, I don't think it's as bonkers as it sounds - let me explain...
Insurance is all about levels of risk. When you take out an insurance policy with an insurer you're effectively agreeing to a particular level of risk (e.g. you can pick a policy that doesn't cover off piste skiing - that makes you a lower risk), and the price you pay reflects that level of risk (e.g. a policy that only covers you on piste should be cheaper, all other things equal). Of course, you can take risks above the agreed level of risk in the policy, but then you're not covered anymore.
There are two approaches to defining a level of risk in a policy. One is to nail things down completely by explaining acceptable tolerances for all variables, so that both sides know exactly what is and isn't covered. The second is to try to word a policy so that you get an impression of the general level of risk which is acceptable, but without specifying exact conditions. Clearly option 1 is better for all concerned - there's no doubt and everyone knows where they stand. Option 2 is always going to leave open the possibility of a grey area where people can disagree about what's covered.
The problem is that skiing is a highly uncertain sport, where safety is governed by lots of different factors. So much so, that it's almost impossible to say for sure that an area of off piste is safe without first skiing it/near it (hence even professionals get it wrong sometimes). This means that the only practical way to use option 1 is to pick some arbitrary variables that are easy to define (e.g. avvy level) and use those to 'tie down' your policy. At first glance that seems fine, but if you think about it policies rarely make sense like this (e.g. "always covered at avvy level 3, never covered at avvy level 4" is just not sensible). It's just not possible to define the safety of a slope based on a small subset of easily defined variables.
The only other way to use option 1 would be to define every possible situation you could find yourself in (in terms of all the different variables in play) and explain for each whether you'd be covered. That's going to lead to an infinite policy wording...and nobody wants to read that
So all you're left with is option 2 - try to define a general level of risk and then assess each situation as it comes. Coming back to my original point, I wasn't saying (if you read the post) that more ambiguity is always good, but in some cases more is better. If an insurer is trying to tightly define their policy wording (or is being asked to tightly define their wording...which I think is what you're doing) then they're automatically on to a loser - I just don't believe it can work. There has to be some level of ambiguity, so there's no point (and it's not helpful) trying to pin insurers down on the exact level of risk they'll accept (unless you want to develop some horrifically complex risk metric they can use). That's not to say you can't prompt them to have slightly clearer wording, but you have to accept that it's never going to be categorical about what is and isn't covered.
| snowcrazy wrote: |
Someone posted that with there wording, they could say that even avalanche level 3 is to risky
|
And this, I think is my point. The way I read that, you're suggesting that it's in some way strange/wrong/unusual that an insurance company might decide that in a particular, specific circumstance skiing off piste in avalanche level 3 is too risky. Think about that again...saying that an insurance company is wrong if they ever consider avvy level 3 too risky is equivalent to saying that all off piste skiing in level 3 is safe (or should be considered such for the purposes of insurance). That is clearly bonkers (right?).
If I'm off piste in avvy level 3, but there's a specific warning about a weak layer at a particular aspect/altitude then I probably shouldn't be skiing that aspect/altitude. It depends on the strength of the warning and all sorts of other stuff, but if there's good reason to believe that it's really dangerous then it's not unreasonable for my insurance company to decide I'm taking unacceptable risks and am not covered. If you want to be covered for taking mental risks then you should expect to pay a pretty massive premium 
But I agree about the use of "side country" in a wording - very weird if an insurance company is using slang like that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
ChrisWo, I was going to bed, but first I want to reply to your post. I have to say that this is one of the best answers I have read on here. Are you in the insurance or similar business. I agree with most of what you have written. But still feel that there are to many wordy clauses in the policies that could, as has happened in some cases, allow the companies to not pay out, when the person thought they were covered.
How to get round that situation is the hard question and as you say, I also think there is not a clear solution. But by adding such things as the latest 'side country' example does not seem to help unless this is clearly defined in the policy which we have not seen. Maybe the person that posted those words could give more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
ChrisWo, I think you have illustrated the issues really well there and I'm in total agreement that insurance companies cannot start specifying certain avalanche risk levels as being OK or not OK (as per some of my other posts on the subject on this thread and the other thread re Direct Travel Insurance).
| Quote: |
But still feel that there are to many wordy clauses in the policies that could, as has happened in some cases, allow the companies to not pay out, when the person thought they were covered.
|
snowcrazy, have you got examples of that? Forget skiing for a sec, it's quite well known that the majority of silly accidents on the Costas etc are alcohol and drug related (as are a fair few ski accidents of course). Insurance policies have specific "under the influence" exclusions - yet, most often they pay out and that's because the onus of proof ultimately is with them and it's hard to prove even when leaping from the balcony into the pool (but missing) when blind drunk would seem an obvious reason not to pay out. Moreover it's cheaper to settle than to fight it. For an insurance company not to pay out, and to prefer a fight and having the Financial Ombudsman and/or FSA on their back, there has to be a very very valid reason.
I also think you need to seperate what the actual Policy Wording says from the marketing speak or general guidelines that lie outside of the policy wording that actually forms the contract (you refer to some as clauses yet I suspect they are just general guidelines). Some Policy Wordings just say off-piste skiing is covered (full stop). They then go on to give guidelines on the phone or on their site's FAQs. It's the actual policy wording that counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
Are you in the insurance or similar business.
|
No, 'fraid not - just paranoid about not being covered for off piste skiing, so have thought about this a lot 
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
Some Policy Wordings just say off-piste skiing is covered (full stop).
|
Agree with your general point Bode, but is that right - it sounds very catch-all to me. If there's a wording that does say that, I'd expect the premium to be huge (and if it's not, then I'm very interested in taking out a policy!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
ChrisWo, I'm out all day otherwise I'd do a quick trawl and tell you which ones. Later maybe. Sometimes it's what a policy doesn't say rather than what it does say that's important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ChrisWo wrote: |
| Lechbob wrote: |
WTH is slack country?
|
Heheh, it's a bit like back country but without the need for any hiking. Also known as side country... |
Yes that seems to be the wiki, a US expression, I can't find it defined in the policy.
The next higher level of cover with snowcard is "Multi sport – max adventure" includes cover for "lift served freeride" which to my mind is clearer.
Basic winter sports insurance often only covers on piste skiing. It is a natural progression to ski unpisted snow. Cover is needed against large costs for rescue & medical treatment should things go wrong when I go outside the piste markers or take an itinerary. The insurance companies seem to be able to cope with the American concept of within bounds. It would be nice, and safer (?) if we could have designated avalanche protected areas. Failing this, better definitions to suit the European model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lechbob, Yes, I saw that on wiki as well, but I do not think 'lift served freeride' is any better. I know some places in the paradiski which are served by a lift and are really extreme and I do not think they would all be covered by some companies. No hiking involved, just need to know the route. Yet again it would be down to the individual how he interpreted the wording. Not really much of an improvement I my mind.
With the permission of the poster on my facebook group. Here is what Mondial Assistance have said about policies they Underwrite in the UK. Very interesting to read and if you ski with SCGB Leaders or have there insurance, worth noting what it says here.
Mondial Assistance:
The following applies to all travel Insurance policies that Mondial underwrite in the UK and Republic of Ireland.
From an underwriting perspective we need to make a distinction between the type of off piste skiing/boarding and in our experience these fall into two main categories:
Item 1) Those who are beginners or relatively inexperienced who consider “off piste” to be simply going slightly off the groomed run either by accident or as a small part of a lesson with an instructor.
Item 2) Those who are experienced and choose to ski predominantly or deliberately off piste.
For the first category, we would need to give some leeway on our requirements due to the customers inexperience or circumstances e.g. with an instructor.
For the second category we would expect that the person is experienced enough to understand the potential dangers, general guidance and local advice/laws/regulations (for the particular area/country) for off piste skiing.
General off piste guidance (which we would expect insurance customer to observe) are as follows:
· Do not ski/board alone
· Always ski with a guide/instructor unless you are very familiar with the resort/area
· As a minimum, a shovel, probe and transceiver should be carried
· Check local weather forecasts and avalanche warnings every day
. Do not ignore any warning signs or local advice
· Do not ski if the avalanche warning is 4 or 5
Our policies contain the following additional conditions and exclusions that are relevant (please note the actual phrasing in different policies may vary)
· You should take reasonable care to protect yourself …….. against accident, injury …………
· You are not covered for claims relating to your suicide, self-injury or deliberately putting yourself at risk (unless you were trying to save another person’s life)
· You are not covered if you do not follow any suggestions or recommendations of ………….. or other official authority.
Mondial are currently in the process of conducting our annual policy wording review and I will ensure that our current wording regarding off piste is updated.
...............................................................................
Further to this: all points under item 2 would apply if you are deliberately skiing off-piste with a Ski Club Great Britain instructor/guide (leader).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I have not added or changed anything on this post. Read it for yourself and make your own mind up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| I do not think 'lift served freeride' is any better. I know some places in the paradiski which are served by a lift and are really extreme and I do not think they would all be covered by some companies. No hiking involved, just need to know the route. Yet again it would be down to the individual how he interpreted the wording. Not really much of an improvement I my mind. |
I am not saying it defines the degree of risk to enable the insurers to calculate a premium but it is a recognisable phrase defining the scope of the insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lechbob, I understand what you are saying, but I do wonder why the companies do not use planner language rather than invent yet another new phrase.
It shoud be easy for them to come up with wording based on for example the official avalanche standards scale quoted earlier or as Mondial have now done above, clear and simple wording. I think what Mondial have said is very clear. If you go off piste take your gear, check with the resort authorities and know the place well. Simple and clear to understand. I do wonder how that matches up with the SCGB policy wording as that is written I guess by the broker not the underwriter. Anyone know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
isn’t a local authority warning against skiing in that particular part. 