 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
snowbunny, Good luck with that. I had to swap policies from them after trying to confirm some stuff that was there in black and white.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| pam w wrote: |
| and there are no such things as "resort boundaries" in Europe, anyway, as far as I know. |
In France "in resort" would be taken to be anywhere that can be reached by gravity from the ski lifts and probably up to any ridgeline that can be reached by a short climb beyond the lift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
So I would succeed with a claim for injury on a closed piste on the grounds that I am an instructor and decided it was ok to re-open it?
|
The consensus of opinion in a recent SH thread was that you were very unlikely to be covered by most insurers for an accident on a closed piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Oh dear pam w, that was just a joke in relation to the daft answer snowbunny got.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Another double posting! I seem to have developed a keyboard stutter.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Sat 2-01-10 23:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| ccl wrote: |
snowbunny. I hope you will be e-mailing back and asking for an answer from someone senior in the company who actually knows something about snowsports. That reply is just a mishmash of nonsense
|
Yes, I did email back, but have received no reply at all. That may have more to do with the Bank Holiday though. We are thinking that it has just turned into a regular "vanilla" holiday travel policy, like most available in the UK.
It would be nice if we were wrong, but in any case I'm trusting the business of our emergency recovery to Air Glaciers this winter. I do not want any debate about validity of rescue cover when I'm most poorly equipped to deal with the challenge.
david@mediacopy, oh dear, that is not reassuring to read. Who did you switch to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use Snowcard, (www.snowcard.co.uk ) My claims have included a major health one (non-ski )and have been perfectly met. Concerning off-piste "the only time you may not be covered is if an area has bees CLOSED (my capitals ) by the local authorities because of avalanche danger and you choose to ignore the restrictions " This assumes I take their Level 4 for winter sports. As I have an annual policy at level 2 for non-winter, I get automatic level 4 for winter sport. Odd wording but it's their way.
They do stress that one should have the skill and awareness to deal with the conditions and carry transceivers and rescue equipment as necessary. Therin might lie a source of argument but my experience of them suggests they will do everything they can to pay out, rather than to avoid so doing.
They are skiers and you can talk to them. The backing insurance company is Fortis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farley Goode, looks like pretty much the same with Snowcard. Just who is this "local authority" in charge of the mountains? How do you "open" an area that is never closed? Unless of course, as an insurer you are thinking that everyone is in resort, a being safely controlled by the lift company, and team of pisteurs.
I wonder what constitutes (from an Underwriters perspective) Avalanche Danger?
I used to use Snowcard, but dropped their policy a couple of years ago, after they withdrew cover whilst I had an MRI Scan on 1 knee. Not that they specified which knee they pulled cover from. I was pretty shocked at how they behaved when I (correctly) notified them that I was having a scan. To me their behaviour was more akin to a budget policy seller.
Details in a thread on here somewhere, but the search function is barely functional. I'm glad you've had your claims met though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
ccl, I too would be very interested in the answer you get from your insurer regarding the covering of all medical and possible repatriation bills after having any search and rescue and evacuation off the mountain covered by Carre Neige. Please post their reply in this thread when you receive a response from Carre Neige.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowbunny, I went with the Ski Club offering in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Hornster, No problem - I was intending to do so.
In the meantime,, let us enjoy this splendid example of defining a term by using the term to define itself which I received from a company which I had asked to clarify "local authority warning or advice"
Our winter sports policies include off-piste skiing within European ski resorts providing you are not skiing against local authority warning or advice. This means that we would not cover you for any claims that arise directly or indirectly as a result of you going against a warning or advice given by the local authority at any European chosen resort.
So now you know 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I suspect you are all bored with this by now, but that has never deterred me from keeping on talking. 
I tried again to get specific advice on the level of avalanche risk covered:
Thank for your reply. Unfortunately it is still far from clear what you mean and, wiithout intending to be rude, your explanation seems to be written without an actual knowledge of snowsports. and ski resorts. You just do not get notices displayed by a local authority "confirming that it is not safe to ski off piste". What you do get are indications on boards and by flags of the level of avalanche risk according to an internationally recognised scale. There are 5 levels and I would like to know, in order to consider whether your policy meets my needs, what the maximum level of avalanche risk your policy would cover.
I even copied the wording of the risk levels to them, but the reply remained comically vague:
We use a common sense approach on our Off Piste cover. If there is a notice displaying that there is any kind of a risk, whether it is a low risk or a very high risk, should you choose to ski in any of these areas, there would be no cover in place.
Please note as per the policy wording under General conditions, it states
“2 You must take and cause to be taken:
a) all reasonable precautions to avoid injury, illness or disease for example by using appropriate and
customary safety equipment on all occasions whilst participating in any sports or hazardous activities;”
Some examples of a local authority would be any representative of any of the emergency services, ski instructors, ski lift operators, mountain rescue.
If you are unsure and cannot get clarification from any authority, then do not ski in that area.
Apart from the obvious avoidance of any specific reference to the recognised risk levels, isn't this a wonderful new concept of insurance? If there is any kind of risk don't do it. And here was I thinking I was looking to be covered against the consequences of the risks of skiing. I am glad I don't have my motor insurance with this lot.
And if I had paid more attention to snowbunny's posting, I would have saved a lot of time. Yes, this is Direct Travel I'm on about - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Brilliant! david@mediacopy. I don 't think I will be looking for any anatomical advice on distinguishing ars*s from elbows from Direct Travel. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| snowbunny wrote: |
ccl thanks for the extra info, I've still had no reply, so I'm thinking of phoning them for a rant, as this is turning into a proper crock of * 
Edit...
Just had a lengthy phone conversation with them, and they are going to consider the issues (discussed in this thread) and phone me back. Apparently, no-one has ever asked this stuff before.
|
I'm not surprised. A huge number of people don't get insurance at all  And of those who do, a large majority never fully read the policy. And it will be a miniscule proportion even of those who then decide it is ambiguous enough that they feel the need to ask.
| Quote: |
Who is this "local authority" since most of the folks they suggest are not qualified, and have no authority to do "opening" of something that is never shut?
|
Most of the people they listed would be expected to be passing on the information from their employers. I'm not too sure what this "opening" you are talking of is.
| Quote: |
In the event of a claim, how is the insured expected to prove they sought local advice?
|
I think it is more the other way around. You are expected to have checked the main advice, but rather than being required to seek it, you are only not covered if you go against it. You don't have to prove you sought advice, you only have to show there were no warnings against skiing where you were.
| Quote: |
Crossing boundary markers at edge of resorts would signify being notified of risk, so is there any off piste or touring cover whatsoever on this policy?
|
Mostly we are talking about Europe here. There are no boundary markers at the edge of resorts. And even if there were, that would not IMO classify as being "against local authority warning" unless the signs warned of specific danger, or said something like "skiing prohibited beyond this point".
| Quote: |
Advised the co that this was being discussed in public on  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
alex_heney
Re: the "opening". It's a phrase that the insurer used. I'm getting the impression that they are thinking only in resort controlled environment terms. Which is in contradiction with their off piste and ski touring cover. Why would anyone go ski touring in a resort, what would be the point?
| Quote: |
I asked "Who is the "local authority" in this instance"?
Quote:
If an area has been deemed unsafe to ski in and there are written warnings in place by whoever is in charge, be it lift operators, ski instructors or any other person employed within the resort (local people who are in an authorised position) then you do not ski in that area until such time that it has been opened and any such bans have been lifted. If you were to ski in such an area where warnings were in place, you would not be covered if you had an accident or for example started an avalanche. A common sense approach to all travel plans and activities is essential at all times.
|
No response from the co. yet. Of most concern to me is the comment ccl received about risk levels:
| Quote: |
If there is a notice displaying that there is any kind of a risk, whether it is a low risk or a very high risk, should you choose to ski in any of these areas, there would be no cover in place.
|
Has anyone ever seen an Avalanche Warning of Zero?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I've received a return phone call advising me of an email. Here is the company's answer to my queries: My Q in black, the co. response in red as per their email. This is a reworked reply from them, of my original mail to the co.
| Quote: |
I have just renewed my Annual Premier Policy with your company.
Could you please clarify a phrase in the Policy wording for me, as I'm unsure as to what it actually means.
It's on Page 15, near to the top, the list of exclusions on skiing cover.
We must bring to your attention the following General Condition: 2 You must take and cause to be taken:
a) all reasonable precautions to avoid injury, illness or disease for example by using appropriate and
customary safety equipment on all occasions whilst participating in any sports or hazardous activities;
b) all practicable steps to safeguard your property from loss, theft or damage and to recover property that
has been lost or stolen.
The phrase "skiing against local authority warning or advice"
This would mean skiing in an area that is deemed dangerous by the local authority responsible for the safety of visitors to the mountain or resort. Most resorts will post bulletins on weather and skiing conditions, and include notices on closed/dangerous areas of the mountain. (Sometimes at hire shops, ski school offices, hotel receptions, tour operator representatives etc.)
Who is the "local authority" in this instance?
Examples of local authority would be: any of the emergency services; mountain rescue; ski resort employees such as ski guides/instructors.
Do you mean the resort lift company?
If the resort lift company were advising people not to ski in a specific area, then do not ski there.
Does it mean the nearest Town Hall?
It would not be reasonable to expect anyone to visit a town hall for advice on local ski conditions.
Does it mean being uninsured when crossing beyond ski area boundary markers, such as piste edge poles?
If skiing within the United States or Canada, outside the boundary of a resort, you would need to be accompanied by a locally qualified ski guide (due to the vastness of the areas). Off-piste skiing within other countries does not have the same restriction.
Does it relate to publicised Avalanche Warning Levels which are set in place for the entire alpine season and range from 1-5. There is never "none" or "zero" avalanche warning in alpine areas.
We do not have any mention of avalanche warnings within our documentation, you would need to be guided by the local advice, i.e. is the area deemed too dangerous for skiing?
If there is any doubt as to the safety of the area you wish to ski in, and there is nobody in authority to ask, do not ski there.
|
I think they have given it their best shot. It seems clear from this mail, that they are firmly focused on the resort skier, who is in a relatively controlled environment. The concept of roaming free on skis in the mountains is a nettle they do not wish to grasp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take the Direct Travel information to relate to actual warnings... not the avalanche risk rating. I'd be surprised if any court judgement would side with them if they declined a claim based on the rating system as their web site states "Off-piste skiing and snowboarding permitted (as long as it is not against local authority advice)".
The warning system is designed to inform off piste skiers as to the level of risk... this enables them to make judgements regarding what terrain they will venture onto. If the skier making a claim could back up his decision making process i.e The rating was high on average so I decided to avoid certain areas, to only ski a slope with stabilising features such as trees etc etc.
Specific warnings not to leave the piste are a different matter but how often are conditions so bad that that we see those? It may be a get out clause for the insurance company but they may well need to provide a lot of evidence before refusing to pay out.
If you are doing some very serious terrain though... use the BMC. I use it for climbing trips nut for general off piste skiing I go for the cheaper Direct Travel option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I take the Direct Travel information to relate to actual warnings... not the avalanche risk rating. I'd be surprised if any court judgement would side with them if they declined a claim based on the rating system as their web site states "Off-piste skiing and snowboarding permitted (as long as it is not against local authority advice)".
The warning system is designed to inform off piste skiers as to the level of risk... this enables them to make judgements regarding what terrain they will venture onto. If the skier making a claim could back up his decision making process i.e The rating was high on average so I decided to avoid certain areas, to only ski a slope with stabilising features such as trees etc etc.
Specific warnings not to leave the piste are a different matter but how often are conditions so bad that that we see those? It may be a get out clause for the insurance company but they may well need to provide a lot of evidence before refusing to pay out.
If you are doing some very serious terrain though... use the BMC. I use it for climbing trips but for general off piste skiing I go for the cheaper Direct Travel option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone else got a keyboard stutter. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Hmm. Can of worms, isn't it? I have seen plenty of signs (France) indicating that beyond this point you are skiing at your own risk (can't remember the exact wording) but I don't remember any saying that a specific off piste area is "closed" (which implies that sometimes they might have been "open". But a chequered or black flag could reasonably be taken as indicating that they are all "dangerous". I think this has been a useful thread - should make people think. I only dabble in the teeniest bit of off piste skiing, but it would seem sensible for anyone doing it more seriously to take out the Carré Neige (or local equivalent). For the price of a few beers, it's a no-brainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No problem Chris, it is being done for a purpose. As far as I can see, Direct Travel hasn't given a clear answer about avalanche risk, and indeed gave me the impression they just don't know about the gradings that should be so much in the awareness of any off-piste skier.
Interesting that you prefer the vagueness of Direct Travel to the preciseness of JS. Just a difference between us, I guess. I want to have certainties in what I am insured for and not worry about an insurer finding loopholes in the event of a claim. So what I know from JS is that if have an accident off piste with the avalanche risk level at 3, the insurer cannot turn round and refuse a claim on those grounds, and since I wouldn't consider going off piste at 4, I don't have a problem with that. With all the winter wonderland stuff from Direct Travel, I just wouldn't know where I stood and I don't live comfortably with too many uncertainties.
But there is a more immediate concern in the ccl household than skiing insurance. I have just finished the last bit of Christmas cake. There is no more. Not a crumb. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Val d'Isere has some warning signs at the entry to some off piste areas. Found this picture via Google
For Col Pers:
"This is where the ski slopes end
Continue at your own risk
No markers - No barriers - No patrols
Beware
The Malpasset georges are often impassable"
This sign is at the entry to a very popular off piste route. 
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Mon 4-01-10 22:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
That's the sort of sign that pam w refers to which are common at the boundary of a managed resort in France. Thanks for that Adrian. They are purely advisory as you can see from the wording.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ccl wrote: |
[
Regarding the Carré Neige, I am waiting an answer from my current insurer to the question of whether they would meet any claims arising from the later stages of an off-piste injury given evacuation from the mountain and transport to hospital has been covered by the Carré Neige eg if medical costs go beyond €3000. i suspect the answer will be no. |
I wasn't wrong! The answer was, as I really expected, that if the accident happened off-piste without a guide, I would not be covered in any way for any costs at any stage. I wasn't really surprised: I knew that if I were the insurer being asked this question, I would be saying no as well. 
In the end, the clarity of the JS Insurance answer and the feeling that they knew what they were talking about led me to taking out their policy. Not before I had further entertainment trying to get sensible answers from another company:
I would be grateful if you could clarify what is meant in your policy wording regarding off-piste skiing,
"off-piste but on recognised and authorised areas only"
I have many years of experience of skiing and of European resorts, but I have no idea what would constitute a recognised or authorised off piste area. Recognised and authorised by whom? And how marked?
Thank you for your email.
As you have many years experience you will know that In ski resorts, they will have areas where they consider it too dangerous to ski. It is usually cordoned off but if you are in any doubt, it is best to stick to the clearly marked and well known ski runs.
Thanks for your reply. A cordoned off area is clearly a no-go area, but that does not explain what you call a " recognised and authorised area". Presumably you mean everywhere else, but in fact no-one "authorises" off-piste areas. You leave the area managed by a resort which will have off-piste areas, but beyond that is simply the mountain, authorised by no-one. Do you mean your policy does not cover off-piste skiing beyond the area managed by a resort? It would be helpful too, if you could clarify the level of avalanche risk your policy covers. ]
If you were in the unfortunate position of having to make a claim regarding skiing off piste our underwriters would assess the local maps and would speak to local guides to determine whether the area you were skiing in was universally recognized as being an off piste area.
As each person’s ski trip is different and we are unaware as to where each person will be skiing when they buy a policy, we rely on the insured using an element of common sense and judgment. As with all sports and activities there will need to be clear evidence that the participator has endeavored to ensure that their own safety was paramount and they resisted taking unnecessary risks. If you would like to give us full details of where you are skiing we can refer it to our underwriters prior to purchase. Our Avalanche/piste closure/landslide cover is outlined on page 24 of our Policy Wording document.
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the obvious points about taking care and avoiding unnecessary risks, but you have not defined what you mean by a "recognised" off-piste area. The whole of the mountains are off-piste areas. Some places you might go: others you wouldn't; and that will vary according to the conditions. Common sense and judgement are givens, but I would not wish to take out a policy based on a notion that there are recognised and presumably unrecognised areas. There aren't.
My other question was about the level of avalanche risk a policyholder could ski off-piste at and be covered. This refers to the internationally recognised grading of avalanche risk from 1- 5. I am looking for a policy where the level at which I am covered is defined.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your reply.
I am sorry that I am not able to give you the answers you were looking for and as you have not provided the necessary details of your future trip for the underwriters to take a look at I can not offer you any further help.
Loved the last bit. Suddenly it seemed to be all my fault  It was at this point that I told myself not to Google any more companies in order to ask awkward questions. It was becoming quite addictive and much more fun than playing solitaire on my laptop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
ccl, these folks have missed their true vocation. They should be in Politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
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.
I also asked questions about the racing cover, with specific examples, and they are referring that to the underwriters. I should hear back from them soon. I probably only need that for one week this year, so if necessary would take out a top-up race insurance just for that one week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
CCL, there are recognised 'offpiste areas' in Europe. There are ski routes in Austria (not pisted, not patrolled, but they are avy controlled, and can be closed) and I beleive Verbier has a 'freeride area' that you have to pass through a gate to get to? I wouldn't really call that 'proper' offpiste, but I suspect that is what the insurers were reffering to.
I'm insured with the BMC, who give excellent coverage. If you're doing serious offpiste and/or touring, I don't think there is anyone else who could match them. Also, all profits go to furthering public access to British mountains, instead of some city boys fancy wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
I'm insured with the BMC, who give excellent coverage. If you're doing serious offpiste and/or touring, I don't think there is anyone else who could match them. Also, all profits go to furthering public access to British mountains, instead of some city boys fancy wallet. |
I spent quite a bit of time researching winter sports insurance when I was offering ski & snowboard instructor training programmes at Kicking Horse, BC, Canada (my company was IN THE POWDER).
BMC were the best 10 years ago, and in my eyes nobody has taken that no. 1 spot.
BMC Alpine & Ski policy
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/insurance/Policies.aspx#alpine
Forget the rest and enjoy your skiing / riding worry free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
