 Poster: A snowHead
|
Just seen a post about the wording of the SCGB policy. Very interesting that what theywrite does not match what Mondial have written. Now all you experts on here, which would be correct, what the underwriters say or what the SCGB and there brokers say? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
snowcrazy, underwriters - that's the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Hurtle, If that is correct, then I think maybe people with there policies need to contact them to see what they say if you ask them about off piste skiing without a guide and remember a Ski Club Leader is not a qualified guide, he is just the same as any other skier. My source tells me that what I have posted comes directly from the underwrites themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| Just seen a post about the wording of the SCGB policy. Very interesting that what theywrite does not match what Mondial have written. Now all you experts on here, which would be correct, what the underwriters say or what the SCGB and there brokers say? |
That was my post on the SCGB board and as I tried to point out to you, although you refuse to take any notice, it is the wording of the ski club policy that matters, not something that you have picked up through a third party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
snowcrazy, can only refer you to richjp and Hurtle's answers. It's what the policy says. Period. That's the legalese that both sides of the contract sign up to. When you buy insurance of any kind you confirm that you agree to it. In any civil court case the judge is looking for evidence of what each side agreed to. As I've said before, everything else is advisory or guidance or marketing and would hold little water. I don't know how many insurance brands are underwritten by Mondial but it's in the many hundreds and they surely don't ALL have the same wording. When tabloids say they have a source it's normally carte blanche to make stuff up. Better if you could get a statement out of them yourself I think. If you're going to set something up that advises on insurance you need something more concrete than "a source".
Finally, and just because it's driving me crazy snowcrazy, the word you're looking for most of the time is their.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bode Swiller, hey, it's supposed to be me that's the pedant round here! (Or should that be 'it is I who am supposed to be the pedant'?  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hurtle, yeah, sorry about treading on your toes there but you'd ignored it for too long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, I think I deserve a bloody medal, actually!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Bode Swiller, interesting what you and richjp, have both said, but since it is mondial themselves that have written what I posted, not just any made up stuff, I wonder if they are not in fact showing us how they would interpret the wording, 'putting yourself at risk' and 'not heeding local authority advice'. As you are putting yourself at risk by not having the kit off piste or not knowing the place well and you are also not heeding advice by doing these same things. Then both breaches of the contract wording would in fact mean they might choose not to cover you in the case of an accident.
If you add to this skiing with a Ski Club GB Leader when most of the group do not have the kit, then I wonder how the insurance or for that matter the authorities might react. At the very least it would appear to be misguided or perhaps negligent on the leaders part as he is responsible as the most experienced person present. But then as a layperson that is just my view, but I wonder 
By the way Bode Swiller, richjp, Hurtle, would any of you seriously consider skiing off piste without knowing the place or not having the correct kit. Please do say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
By the way Bode Swiller, richjp, Hurtle, would any of you seriously consider skiing off piste without knowing the place or not having the correct kit. Please do say? |
I know you are not asking me, but this is a public forum so whatever. Yes I would ski off piste without knowing an area. I don't have an issue with that, I wouldn't expect an insurance company to have an issue either, but I would never expect one of the punter policies to cover my type of skiing. I can read and understand the avalanche bulletin. I can speak to the piste patrol if I am in a ski resort or ask locals, I can read a topo-map. I understand risk mitigation with respect to human factors and the mountain environment. It may have an influence on what kit I take with me, but hell, I'm skiing places I don't know all the time and sometime skiing where no-one has ever set a spatula.
I wouldn't condone skiing off piste alone without avalanche rescue kit and crevasse rescue kit on glaciated terrain (someone could probably sue me if I did  ) but far more important is knowing how to use this gear and how to mount an effective rescue... really not easy in the case of crevasse rescue. However the kit is probably increasing the risk you are taking not reducing it, I think Bruce Tremper said that more people have been killed because they are carrying an avalanche beacon than not. From an insurer's point of view having a beeper will make the S&R operation must less costly. Having a guide or instructor with you will give them someone to pass costs onto (insurers always like that). Their actuaries probably see enough claims to have an idea about what risk they are comfortable with.
All we can really go on is cases of claims that have been refused and what the reasons for those refusals are. Henry (HAT) alludes to this in his blog but doesn't give any specifics. We know that CNA have refused a claim (on a risk 3 day) but they don't seem to be underwriting so many policies these days.
I would just like to echo some points already made. I don't believe that "significant risk" can be automatically equated to risk level 4. Check out the wording of the North American danger levels. Risk 3: avalanches likely, Risk 4: very likely. Both sound pretty significant to me.
Also one cannot assume (and I checked this point with a leading commercial insurance expert so it is not just me talking out of my arse) that because a company says don't ski at risk 4 or 5 you would automatically be ok at any other risk level.
Just to note, that is a legal opinion, the proof of the pudding would be refused claims and appeals to the ombudsman and any legal action.
Anyway I would sum this whole thing up: if you are worried about the wording in your policy document then you are probably right and you should think carefully and maybe alter your plans. The holiday ski insurance policies are aimed at people who will likely be skiing off piste with a professional or who will be doing well tracked routes when the yellow flag is flying. Something like the Lac du Lou main route at Val Thorens on a nice sunny risk 1 or 2 day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
| Finally, and just because it's driving me crazy snowcrazy, the word you're looking for most of the time is their. |
I've been following this thread for a couple of months now and have shown uncharacteristic restraint. Mainly because snowcrazy, has been doing some seriously good work and I didn't want to belittle that with my sad pedantry. But, Jesus Christ!, it's been tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Like Davidof I too ski ski off piste alone and I'm still searching for the right policy - I should add that I'm not skiing glacier terrain.
What I do, and I know many others do - is go ski touring "alone" on recognised randonee routes in good spring type conditions and when conditions are "safe". In fact I'll come across walkers on snow shoes!
It might only be towards the summit when conditions might get demanding, and then I might back off.
This is what is of concern to me as to how do I obtain cover - so far only the BMC seems that they might be the only suitable company?
I know I've asked this before, but still have not seen a good option!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, Weathercam, very good comments in the most part, but as the likes of Snowcard, Dogtag, SCGB, SCUK and BMC policies are not just off the shelf policies aimed at the average holiday skier, but also for the serious season/multi trip skier/boarder the wording of these policies is very important to all of us. As you rightly say, the crunch is, will they pay out. What I like about the latest post from Mondial is they have tried to be clearer than any others until now have been. OK, I agree it may not be binding, BUT it does give you an incite into their view on what are acceptable risks to take and what are not.
That does not mean I agree with what they have said, but at least they have tried to answer what was asked in a clear way.
I believe it is time that other companies did the same thing so that choosing the right policy for yourself was not like entering a minefield of wordy double meaning phrases that can be used to deny a claim at a later stage.
If nothing else, based on some of the correspondence received, some companies are now conducting a review of there policy wording to make it clearer what they consider is or is not an acceptable risk.
To quote what I posted earlier: 'I wonder if they (Mondial) are not in fact showing us how they would interpret the wording, 'putting yourself at risk' and 'not heeding local authority advice'. As you are putting yourself at risk by not having the kit off piste (davidof, I agree also knowing how to use it is equally important) or not knowing the place well and you are also not heeding advice by doing these same things. Then both breaches of the contract wording would in fact mean they might choose not to cover you in the case of an accident.'
If you apply the opinion stated above by Mondial in the context of skiing off piste with a Ski Club GB Leader or any other unqualified responsible adult/leader when most of the group do not have the kit, then I wonder how the insurance or for that matter the authorities might react. At the very least it would appear to be misguided behavior or perhaps negligent on the leaders part as he is responsible as the most experienced person present. That might in turn lead to your own insurance refusing to pay up. But then as a layperson that is just my view, but I wonder?
As an after thought, it does seem very difficult to get any information from the companies regarding details of claims that have not been paid out and why. I do know one person who is an actuary and I might ask him if he has time to give an opinion on this aspect and how the companies calculate risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
snowcrazy, I always had DogTag and felt that I was "insured" both for skiing / snowboarding & windsurfing - when I did more questionable demanding stuff I was usually with a guide - it's only when you have a serious incident which I had this year that you then question the small print of the insurance - I'm 90% sure that I would not have been covered as I fell off a cliff - so was not exactly taking care - though twas an accident.
Regardless of the cliff looking at all the small print - I doubt we would have been covered - 30cm plus of fresh powder means that conditions could be described as unstable, yet totally classic for off piste - but I think for the majority of people we're not debating what happens god forbid we or others get hit by a slide - but what happens in skiing those type of conditions where you go base over apex and maybe the ski does not release and you do your knee in, exactly the same as could and does happen on the piste.
Ski touring, by way of skinning up is not hazardous in typical spring conditions - and again most people that ski tour are aware of the dangers though every year we read on Davidof's site of unfortunate incidents but usually when conditions are unstable - like I said I would not go on my own into terrain where I thought I could be taken out - however you've done your three / four hour climb and have a nice descent in spring snow, it's only as you get down towards the bottom that the snow gets heavy, you take your eye off the ball and end up falling straining your knee etc you ring up SOS and then what does the insurance CO say?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| davidof, Weathercam, very good comments in the most part, but as the likes of Snowcard, Dogtag, SCGB, SCUK and BMC policies are not just off the shelf policies aimed at the average holiday skier |
Personally I've never seen Dogtag as a serious skier policy but a bit of clever marketing... a bit liked rockered skis . Of the policies above the SCGB and BMC should be providing full, all mountain cover and of those I would expect the BMC to provide expedition level cover, that is they cover you whatever the circumstances.
To be frank, we've been saying all this on Snowheads since the forum was set up.
> If you apply the opinion stated above by Mondial in the context of skiing off piste with a Ski Club GB Leader or any other unqualified responsible adult/leader when most of the group do not have the kit, then I wonder how the insurance or for that matter the authorities might react.
The ski club are in a special position... are they a club? are they a commercial operation? are they a tour operator? They wear all three hats at different times. At least with something like the Eagles it is clear they are a club. However no French ski club would take members off piste without Shovel, probe and beacon (because they know they would face prosecution and their insurers would not cover them) and I think that is probably the benchmark other club groups could be judged by today.
| Quote: |
| I do know one person who is an actuary and I might ask him if he has time to give an opinion on this aspect and how the companies calculate risks. |
Ask him. I worked for A** for a few years although not on the claims side although we did have advice if clients got accidentally routed to our department (the advice largely concerned how to discourage them from making a claim). The actuaries do carry out quite a bit of research into risks. I remember at one time they were setting premiums for people who worked in industry involved with wood... particularly sawmills. The actuary was looking at medical research for cancer rates, the wood dust caused testicular cancer. The result was that female workers had lower premiums. However we are talking about something where claims may happen many years after the premium is set so there has to be a lot of research. Think asbestos or thalidomide. The key point is that don't assume that someone hasn't studied the case of avalanche risk in some detail but they will not be an expert in avalanches, just someone making a statistical decision based on their understanding.
Ski insurance largely involves immediate claims. You issue a policy and either someone claims or doesn't during that period. It is a game of mutualizing risk. You have X skiers who make Y claims of Z amount the premium is thus
P = (x * y * z * profit-margin) / x
If P is too big the company may then decide to add an excess or place some exclusions on the policy. Obviously you need a lot of data to set those figures. The big factor that has probably changed wrt to off piste skiing is X - there are a lot more people going off piste compared to 10 or 20 years ago and whereas companies would probably have accepted the odd claim back in the day if they are now being faced with an "avalanche" of claims they probably want to exclude some of the more stupid activity. Public safety is often insurance driven, think about smoking in offices... largely outlawed before any govt action because insurers didn't want claims from passive smokers.
What I think we are seeing is a dichotomy where skiers are wanting to interpret things to their maximum advantage... for example seeing the lines about "not skiing where there as significant risk" as a green light for level 3 days and the insurance company lawyers (don't make any mistake, the policies are drawn up by the underwriters legal department) who would say "we don't care if it was level 2, the bulletin for the day said chance of small avalanches close to ridgelines on north facing slopes and according to the police report we have that is where you were"
That said, the feedback on snowheads is that insurers pay out most of the time (I'll start a thread on this actually).
Lets also not forget the person most likely to need off piste rescue is a bloke aged 30-50 who lives in or close to the mountains. Someone like me that is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
davidof,
| Quote: |
That said, the feedback on snowheads is that insurers pay out most of the time
|
Yep, and of the 3 ski related claims I have made Dogtag paid out the fastest (within 2 weeks) and another company took 6 weeks and then only after I said I would come to their offices in Farnborough to help write out the cheque!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Boredsurfing, do you get commission from Dogtag? They should at the very least be paying you to advertise. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Read a lot of this with interest, but haven't got around to posting anything yet.
My personal view may be a wee bit controversial, but here goes:
Insurance companies should not be using the avalanche scale, the risk level posted on the day or even the local avalanche bulletin as factors on which to base a decision to pay out or not. There is simply too much variability and personal judgement involved in a decision on whether or not to ski / ride a particular slope on a particular day. It's perfectly safe to go ride off-piste even on a level 5 day - as long as you pick the right slope (in this particular case, something very low-angle and not exposed to natural avalanches from above).
You make your own judgement, based on all the information available to you, and decide that a slope is safe to ride. One day you might get this wrong and get avalanched - that is why you have purchased insurance. You shouldn't have to second-guess whether or not your insurance will pay-out.
That people do not knowingly choose to get avalanched (or to take a huge risk of getting avalanched) should be a given - is there a recorded case of "suicide by avalanche"? Your insurance is, or should be, there for when you get it wrong or something happens that you could not have foreseen or that was beyond your control.
Having said all that, I guess I'm implying that insurance companies should accept that their customers are competent to make their own decisions. On that basis, I wouldn't have an issue with insurers requiring some kind of proof of that competence, whether that be insisting on the right kit being carried or insisting on some kind of certification (such as the "level 1" avalanche course which is popular in North America - not sure that we have a formal European equivalent) or, indeed, insisting that you go with a guide as many policies do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
davidof, The ski club are in a special position... are they a club? are they a commercial operation? are they a tour operator? They wear all three hats at different times. At least with something like the Eagles it is clear they are a club. However no French ski club would take members off piste without Shovel, probe and beacon (because they know they would face prosecution and their insurers would not cover them) and I think that is probably the benchmark other club groups could be judged by today.
This is exactly my point as well. In France and quite possibly in other Alpine countries, if the SCGB were to have an accident I think with there current policy there leaders might have a real problem. Friends at our local ski club make sure there groups have the right gear before they go out for the reasons you have outlined.
The dichotomy you are talking about is quite true I think. We all want to be covered but do not want to be restricted in what we like to do. I believe common sense should be the bench mark, but then who decides what is or is not regarded as common sense with the increased numbers of people now skiing off piste without the mountain craft skills to go with there skiing ability greatly enhanced by modern skis.
stevomcd, I agree with what you have said regarding avalanche levels. It is far to easy to base insurance on this, but without proof that those skiing off piste have the right mountain craft knowledge, who can judge whether a person has enough experience, local knowledge or skills in using the equipment to be competent off piste.
Maybe there is a place for a recognised course such as in Canada for avalanche/off piste awareness training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
