 Poster: A snowHead
|
| c44rver wrote: |
| Insurance is a gamble |
Morally, but not legally.
With insurance you're staking money on a loss happening with a specific payout structure, but the rules are different over what you can bet on versus what you can insure against, and how enforceable the contracts are (however much insurance companies may want to treat claims as a debts of honour...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I've a year policy with Toko Marine via www.orbisinsurance.co.uk
Just checked and no helmet clause!!
My Mrs used to be in insurance so makes sure I get a decent policy too 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| hammy050 wrote: |
Insurance isnt a gamble. Insurance is in place to reinstate you in to the financial position you were previously in, in the event of an incident. Insurance is purchased because most humans cannot afford the astronomical medical fees charged abroad.
|
EHIC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Neiltoo, what exactly do you want insurance for? Do you have private health insurance in Ireland? If so that will cover cost of medical care. Get care neigh or equivalent in other countries for off piste rescue. Flight cancellation etc? I wouldn't be arsed. Remember most travel policies are rip offs but you do need medicall cover and rescue if off piste as thowe bills could run to thousands
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Boris wrote: |
http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcareabroad/EHIC/Pages/about-the-ehic.aspx
Won't cover repatriation |
covers the "the astronomical medical fees charged abroad" though ( when abroad = Europe ). NHS won't get you back from Cairngorm either!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course buying insurance is a gamble. Doesn't mean it's not sensible though. Not having insurance is a different kind of gamble. The insurers gamble too but on good intelligence which means they usually win. Which means that it's best to carry the risk yourself if you can afford to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@mishmash, EHIC won't cover private clinics and there are plenty of those in ski resorts and fleets of private ambulances at Geneva airport every Saturday in the ski season. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Insurance is almost certainly bad value for money or the insurance company wouldn't make any money, but everyone has it because if they get in a heavy accident and want expensive medical treatment then they don't lose their life savings. If you were a billionaire you would probably not get insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with insurance being bad value for money on the basis that insurers wouldn't make any money. Different sectors of insurance have differing figures but you can get loss to premium paid ratios well it to the 90%+ mark. Investing money is the way they will make money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
NOT getting insurance is the gamble..!!!!. as without it you're gambling on NOT having an injury that could potentially cost YOU thousands .. having an insurance policy for the year for about £100 is protecting you against all such claims on your purse...what could be worse is a claim ON you from another skier should there be a collision, oh and guess what, with something like that there's a lovely item called court fees.. you think medical expenses are high ?????? soooo is there anyone here not bother with house insurance ? or car insurance ? but instead buy lottery tickets 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 currently use Coverwise. Its cheap (£46, even less with a bit of cashback), covers everything needed and there is nothing about wearing a helmet in there. Also covers you for plenty of days of snow (i.e. more than two weeks). I have also had to claim on a policy with them. It was not totally straightforward, and there were a few errors and annoyances along the way, but I did eventually get everything I claimed for back (total claim of everything covered was in the region of £3k).
Remember that in quite a lot of places, EHIC does not cover everything, just gives you what residents there would get (in France, it covers 80% of the cost of state healthcare). For an overnight stay in the hospital at Bourg Saint Maurice the 20% that I had to pay (then claim on the insurance) was about £200, and then a few nights at Chambery hospital was something like 900 euros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in 2010 I tore a calf muscle at the bottom of Belair in Courchevel 1650. Blood wagon cost 500, Dr was 160 including drugs and bandages. Insurance also covered unused ski pass and had i been unable to drive would have repatriated the car and I.
I think it was good value.
However if you add up all the money paid on travel insurance over the last 30 years and offset it against all the claims made then I'm out of pocket so yes it's a gamble but 1 bad accident could redress the balance if legal fees and personal liability came into it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@jonnyboy93, hmm. Are you sure about that - Coverwise policy (p17) has almost identical wording to my I&G policy about recommended safety equipment which could be interpreted as "put a lid on it sunshine or no cover".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Steve Sparks wrote: |
@Neiltoo,
| Quote: |
I insure myself precisely because I dont like to gamble!
|
You're then gambling that the amount you pay out in premiums won't be more than the amount you end up claiming. |
That's exactly what you are not doing as it's a statistically losing proposition. You are trading a known relatively small payment against the small probability of a potentially large one. The question is what happens if you have to pay out £100Ks or even £Ms.
Now if we were talking about extended warranty e.g. what happens if your fridge goes phut, then I'll take my chances of losing a few £100s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
... You are trading a known relatively small payment against the small probability of a potentially large one. The question is what happens if you have to pay out £100Ks or even £Ms.
Now if we were talking about extended warranty e.g. what happens if your fridge goes phut, then I'll take my chances of losing a few £100s. |
Check Prospect Theory, which explains how people's judgement on these things is mostly flawed. The insurance and lottery businesses depend upon this.
Personally I don't insure most things, because I know the down-side cost and can take it. So pooling my risk is not cost effective. I've saved tens of thousands of pounds in insurance over the seasons (some stuff I do is very expensive to insure). I probably have some investment in insurance companies, so I've no problem with others buying the stuff - that's my safe bet I think.
I can't imagine someone getting hurt so badly that they'd choose to have millions of pounds long term care in an expensive place. Moreover I can't imagine an insurance company who would not insist on repatriation. This is a fantasy. You can easily cost up repatriation if you're really interested in insurance.
As far as an insurance company trying to wheedle out of their liability by citing what you are or are not wearing... I doubt very much that would work for them. There's no clinical data I'm aware of which would support that. Where there is (for example on the wearing of helmets whilst driving), the fact that you'd be less injured there if you wore a helmet is not an argument an insurance company would be likely to get away with in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| I can't imagine someone getting hurt so badly that they'd choose to have millions of pounds long term care in an expensive place. |
Me neither but I can imagine paying £Ms in compensation if I caused a serious accident that crippled somebody else.
Why do I have insurance for cycling? It's not to cover myself or my bike. It's to cover a possible road traffic accident for which (conceivably) I might be found liable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Liability: a different issue, apologies for not realizing you were talking about that. Most insurance companies major on medical costs, see above.
Many of us are insured for third party liability through other existing insurance. Arguably your costs for that should go up if you wear a helmet 
Just to put another perspective:
Q: Why do I *not* have insurance for cycling?
A: Because I don't/ won't ride in a manner which could conceivably be construed as illegal or negligent. And I have the video to prove it.
I also have the biggest bike lock known to man - it weighs more than half my bike, so that's not insured either. And it has been stolen, and recovered: I just try so much harder because I'm not insured. Insurance... feeding criminals by reducing the pain of careless behaviour? Well that's too strong, but it does have some effects which aren't great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if a certain ex formula one driver was insured ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@yorkshirelad, He was. We shared a chalet with his insurer last year. He was a very worried man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Neiltoo thanks for bringing this up, it hadn't occurred to me that this was becoming fashionable for insurance companies. I've checked my company (cheapest on the market after a lot of investigating), which offers a comprehensive service and no mention of a helmet in the policy in relation to winter sports. Company is Insure for All. Personally, I choose not to wear a helmet as I find them irritating to wear but fully respect others choice in the matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do see it becoming compulsory in resorts though in a few years so might as we'll get used to wearing them,
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Last time I was at Mount Hemel Hempstead I looked around the lift queue and I was the only person not wearing a helmet. Thought hmmmmm. Pretty soon not wearing a helmet is going to look as freaky as a cyclist not wearing one (which it now does).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| dogwatch wrote: |
| Last time I was at Mount Hemel Hempstead I looked around the lift queue and I was the only person not wearing a helmet. Thought hmmmmm. Pretty soon not wearing a helmet is going to look as freaky as a cyclist not wearing one (which it now does). |
Me and a mate were the same when we went a few months back. Proved the stupid option though as my mate fell, smacked his head and virtually knocked himself out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@albob, thats encouraging news - but it does highlight the ill-chosen language and how much 'wriggle' room there is in these clauses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Richard_Sideways, I did think that when I read the phrasing -- i.e. who was doing the recommending. I know my tour operator (Crystal) do, but do they have any authority?? - I doubt it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
You need to be a bit careful with some of this. Places like Whistler, if you want to do spinny ballet tricks in their park then helmets are mandatory. But for normal use they aren't, although they probably have rules for staff (BC employment law is like UK health and safety).
| SnoodyMcFlude wrote: |
| ... Pretty soon not wearing a helmet is going to look as freaky as a cyclist not wearing one (which it now does). |
Which is a huge problem for cyclists because at least some drivers believe that the helmet makes you safe, where the evidence suggests that it doesn't. In places like Cambridge about half the people wear helmets. Check Australia for how to really screw things up with helmet law.
Mandatory helmet wearing for drivers would I believe make a significant contribution to reducing death and serious injury. If you could make them full face, they'd probably also reduce the number of moronic people playing with their phones when they're supposed to be driving .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
Interesting (in a really uninteresting way...) My old policy doc doesn't mention it, the NEW one does, and it does state...
Quote:
You must always adopt and follow the appropriate and recommended safety precautions when undertaking any winter sport activity inclusive of, but not limited to, the wearing of a safety helmet
That clause has been added between september last year and now...
|
I suppose for a snowboarder that means wrist protectors and skiers must wear properly hinged knee braces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
It can mean any old crap to be honest, where do you draw the lines? They 'claim' to know winter sports and have their wordings written accordingly but it's all cobblers. The Off-piste stuff is, if anything, even worse. Most state that if they take the risk assessments from the resort at the time, but no resort is ever going to say 'Zero Risk' so where do you stand as an off-pister? Only go off the tracks when its at its lowest? is Medium ok? High? Most slides that involve people happen in low-med conditions, as people are out there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
There's a difference between what they put in your policy and what will actually stand up in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I guess if there is on thing that insurance companies do not like is RISK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| albob wrote: |
@Neiltoo,
I only renewed my policy with InsureAndGo last week. Following this thread, I decided to cancel my policy and swop to DirectTravel (a lot more expensive.....). I received this email today.
"....Thank you for contacting InsureandGo Insurance services Ltd. We can confirm ‘You must always adopt and follow the appropriate and recommended safety precautions when undertaking any winter sport activity inclusive of, but not limited to, the wearing of a safety helmet.’ This means if the resort you are staying at requires you to wear a safety helmet then your policy will not cover you unless you follow this advice...."
Given that confirmation, I have decided to keep the policy
Somebody with better information will be able to confirm, but I cant think of any resorts which insist on Helmets being worn
Good news for us all, and a 'result' for the SnowHeads Massive.......  |
I have spoken to a number of Insure and Go staff over the last few days. It also took a number of emails before they would confirm that the policy wording in force at the time I took my policy out was the relevant one and not the newly updated one.
My concern is the last sentence that you quote: This means if the resort you are staying at requires you to wear a safety helmet then your policy will not cover you unless you follow this advice...."
That is the opnion, I assume, of the person you spoke to, it is not written in the policy wording and as such wouldn't be relevant in the case of a claim. There appears to be no definition of what "appropriate and recommended safety precautions" actually means. Without such a definition it seems to me that it can mean whatever Insure and Go want it to mean.
Edit:
As far as I know (happy to be corrected) the only place in the world that requires (by law) adults to wear helmets is Nova Scotia. So why, if they knew what they were talking about would Insure and Go have such a stipulation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Neiltoo,
Neil - I didn't speak to anyone ! - the bit I quote is from an email. I would assume, should I be unfortunate enough to be involved in a skiing accident, and InsureAndGo decline to pay out, an independent 'court' would accept the wording in my email and rule in my favour....
I'm happy to accept their 'clarification'..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
I guess if there is on thing that insurance companies do not like is RISK.
|
On the contrary, it makes their business possible. If we didn't think there was a risk of something unwelcome happening we wouldn't insure. And if we knew there was no risk we wouldn't insure. And if they know that something unwelcome will happen they won't insure. In a world where outcomes were all certain there'd be no insurance companies (and not much fun).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Boris wrote: |
| Richard_Sideways wrote: |
Interesting (in a really uninteresting way...) My old policy doc doesn't mention it, the NEW one does, and it does state...
| Quote: |
| You must always adopt and follow the appropriate and recommended safety precautions when undertaking any winter sport activity inclusive of, but not limited to, the wearing of a safety helmet |
That clause has been added between september last year and now... |
Am I missing something, but that reads to me that they could insert any item they feel like it to avoid paying? Hurt your back, oh you hadn't got a back protector on sorry no payout. Hurt your wrist, oh no wrist guards sorry no payout. |
It does smack of that. A policy to avoid, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
there's only one place you should have a purple helmet 
