 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
nozawaonsen, very informative and thorough, particularly the last link.
I have not been able to find the exclusion clause for off piste accidents in the CN cover. Maybe it is on page 2. There are exclusions on alcohol.
"Illnesses or accidents linked to alcoholism, drunkeness, or the use of medication, drugs or narcotics not medically prescribed."
If an accident is linked to drunkeness, how do you define drunkenness? (clearly not in the insurance policy)
There must be some commonly accepted level of drunkenness (like drink drive limits) which would apply here. Of course, drink drive limits are lower in most European countries than in the UK!
So, it would be possible to invalidate most claims if say you were hung over from drinking too much the night before, and went skiing and had an accident. However, this would have to be proved in order for a claim to be rejected. So if your blood alcohol levels were not tested, how can the exclusion clause ever be applied?
I suppose it is the same for car insurance. You have to be beathalysed, or have your blood tested by the police. Maybe they do this when ambulance or helicopter is called?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Guessing a bit, but the snowheads insurance scheme may well be being provided by dogtag, who have this year introduced customer branding for BASI (members) and BASI (public) and Snowsports England (public/insturctors/racers - but oddly limited to max 62 days skiing for all). The variations in what these schemes are offering are already confusing enough, and I'm sure that once the SH scheme is publicised picking the most appropriate will only get more complicated. At least if they are all though the same company the policy rules should be pretty much the same.
The sort of problem I find when comparing policies is that when one member of a family does part time-instructing and definately needs off piste and is likely to 40+ days next year, one family member is going to be spending a few months race training/competing, but the other two are only holiday skiers (albeit totally ~3 weeks each) then working out the optimum policy is a hard. If would be fine if we could just have a family policy to cover all the ordinary travel bits and then add on the instructor/racing/offpiste as needed, but I've not yet seen a policy which lets you do this. Maybe it is just too complicated and unusual for the insurance companies to be bothered/interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
RobW, it isn't Dogtag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Hells Bells, Good! Maybe that will give more options. But Bad! It makes it even more complicated 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Phew! As another likely refugee from Direct Travel, I've been applying my mind to annual multi-trip insurance to include wintersports cover. The problem is I have continually encountered, as I have researched the various options, including most of those mentioned in this thread, is that most insurers are hung up on the measly 17 days of skiing max in any one year period. To find this out it is often necessary to peruse the policy wording and it's usually there somewhere in the small print (but frustratingly not highlighted in the policy summary or the key facts).
So far I seem to have come up with the following options (for a couple wanting to ski for up to 45 days a year):
BMC: £287
Ski Club: £168 + membership fee
Snowcard: £117
Click4QUOTE: £70
I'm going to look at the latter two again when I've had some sleep! In the meantime, can anyone help, or make any constructive comment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Try jbionline.com Includes off piste within the bounds of a ski area.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with the Natwest and I'm covered through the advantage Gold account. £12 per month and it covers for skiing, breakdown cover, phone insurance etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ricklovesthepowder, what 's it like for off-piste without a guide? What does it say about avalanche risk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Ricklovesthepowder, what are the length of ski trips that are allowed? I did try looking myself but lost the will to live on the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
achilles, Pamski, I will ring them later and find out. I honestly don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
American Express's top level cover does unlimited number of ski days, and off piste, and you can pay extra for trips of up to 60 days each. Expensive though, but that's obvious, innit? Bigger risk, bigger cost.
Worth looking at snowcard if you do lots of short trips - we left them because they don't cover longer trips, but I can't remember the details. The only time we claimed they were excellent.
Cover for "piste closure" is not worth having, really, the policies are always very tightly worded. If there's a spot of slushy stuff somewhere, the pistes aren't closed. 
I always reduce my premiums by knocking off all the personal property stuff, money, etc. I can afford to carry that risk myself, and as insurance companies only exist to make money, that's going to be the cheapest way, on average.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Right just looked through it.
*covered for up to 31 days
*on piste cover
*off piste cover with a guide
*piste closure
*stolen skis
*avalanche closure
*loss of ski pass
*loss of equipment
*plus many more
you can upgrade to cover helisking, glacier skiing, skeleton etc.
Certainly worth looking into, all above plus phon insurance, breakdown cover us much more, and for £12 a month!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
*covered for up to 31 days
|
Ricklovesthepowder, Presumably that's a total of 31 days in the insurance period? I will look ino it, but, if I'm right, that's no use to me (although as has been commented in a different thread, there does not appear to be any way that an insurance company can easily ascertain how many days an insured person has skied, particularly if the insured has a season pass and is coming and going between the UK and the mountains).
| Quote: |
Worth looking at snowcard if you do lots of short trips - we left them because they don't cover longer trips
|
pam w, I'll look into it again, but I thnk they allow trips of at least a month (31 days) which would suffice for me.
| Quote: |
I always reduce my premiums by knocking off all the personal property stuff, money, etc.
|
pam w, I agree entirely. There's no point in paying higher premiums to insure against non-calamitous events that may never happen. The only winter sports insurance I want and need is to cover me in the event of real emergencies and calamities, which boils down to nasty accidents involving mountain rescue, possible helicoper transportation, medical assistance, repatriation and of course personal liability. It was by knocking off the non-essential frills (that one can guard against or carry the relatively small risk) that I got it down to a premium of £70 for a couple for unlimited annual trips and 45 days of wintersports in any one trip with click4Quote.com
A guy in a different thread was advocating that it makes sense to carry the risk of even calamitous events, on the basis that they are unlikely to happen (cf. your house burning down) and that it's possible to claim against the NHS for medical expenses in an EU country; however I agree with the body of opinion on that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
62 days skiing for all
|
RobW, Rob, Dog Tag appears to limit ski trips to 31 days max., not 62 days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Ricklovesthepowder, Pamski, I;ve looked into the Natwest option and there doesn't appear to be any limit on the number of skiing days per year, subject however to a trip limit of 31 days for the Advantage Gold account and 22 days for the Select Silver account. The gold account gives worldwide cover for a family for £165 per year, whereas the Select Silver account gives European cover to joint account holders for £96 per year. Both policies automatically cover winter sports. These options look good for Natwest customers. Whether it's worth opening an account depends on what other possibilities are available, which I'm still working on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
pam w, AM give worldwide cover including the US/Canada for £415, but European cover is available for £103. Th latter appears to cover ski trips of up to 31 days with an annual max of 93 days. Definitely a competitive possibility for those who intend to ski only in Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
pam w, I meant AMEX!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
njl1968,  Snowheads have a very good package with selectable levels of cover and designed specifically for  's |
Eh!?
I thought this was a non-profit making ski-club website, with some advertising?
However many mutual insurance companies were set up with like minded people wanting protection for activities they undertook (like having children, Quakers, and Equitable life)
So, to suggest a non-profit making organisation such as Snowheads could run an insurance scheme for members is not so unusual. Indeed, for people fed up with being sold total crap with unrealistic conditions, and add on packages which nobody ever uses.
Ski insurance is very short tail insurance business (claims are usually very soon (and settled soon) after the exposure to risk), and so it is very suitable as a product which could be run in a profit sharing scheme for Snowheads.
A profit sharing insurance scheme works like this:
You pay a premium to cover a specified risk. The premium contains a loading, for profit and contingencies, and some of that money is held back each year to provide a buffer for future years. In the early years, you can reinsure the risks above a certain number of claims (excess of loss reinsurance) or you can quota share it (a straight percentage of the premium for a percentage of the claims).
Reinsurance is used heavily in start up companies such as Admiral car insurance (started up as a car insurance only provider in London in 1990s where premiums were extortionate).
You then get some of that profit sharing premium back at the end of the policy term, if you do not make a claim!
The benefits of such a scheme is that it can be tailored so that the policy conditions meet the needs of Snowheads better. (like duration of skiing, elimination of needless frills) Expenses of marketing of such a product would be much reduced, and expenses of claims administration could be outsourced. (although the fraud risk might require you to keep this in house)
How much money do you need to set up a mutual ski insurer? There are things such as profit commissions which reinsurers pay for quota share insurance arrangements, which help cover inital costs. That is why Admiral reinsures so much. It keeps the initial capital costs low.
Volume is the key. How many Snowheads would take out an annual Snowheads policy realistically?
Probably not enough to make it a sensible operation!
The downside of such a scheme, is that the annual premium can seem expensive initially before you get the profit sharing kick back when you do not make a claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I though I would write down this thought as well in case there are any insurers listening.
There is often much abuse in the press regarding insurers refusing to pay claims. Ski insurance is rarely in the press for the simple reason that there is rarely any dispute over a claim. However, were there to be any dispute, such a public forum as this would be useful for a Snowheads court of profit sharing members to hear a claim. People could see that disputed claims were given a hearing beyond and above the claims manager level, before it went to any legal arbitration.
Seems like a good idea to me, but I have not yet thought about the legal consequences. It is more likely to be useful in income protection policies and critical illness policies which often get the press writing one sided arguments without seeing the fraud side of the equation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bigtipper, SnowHeads will have it's own policy very soon, it is ready to go, or should be by now.
. It's even been put to the paying membership for comment and adjustment, and indeed can be tailored to your requirements, with a reduction for taking the Carte Neige in resort.
It will be underwritten of course, and sold by a third party under the SnowHeads name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bigtipper, the snowHeads insurance will be offered by a separate insurance provider - snowHeads is not actually running the scheme but the policy is being/has been tailored to meet snowHeads needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Do people who have made 26481 posts get proportionaly a bigger vote? Or is the decision made democratically by the elected membership of paying voters (with people who pay more getting more votes)? I heard they were going to bring in elections only for taxpayers!
How many advertisements will you lose?
It all adds up, but I can't see how the non-profit making membership of paying members can have a say really as the decision rests with the commission kick backs which will be paid from the insurer (which will be banned after a certain date).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bigtipper, no we didn't vote, we simply made suggestions as to how the policy could be improved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Bigtipper wrote: |
| Do people who have made 26481 posts get proportionaly a bigger vote? Or is the decision made democratically by the elected membership of paying voters (with people who pay more getting more votes)? |
What vote? What decision? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
A guy in a different thread was advocating that it makes sense to carry the risk of even calamitous events, on the basis that they are unlikely to happen
|
It does indeed make sense to do that, providing you have the dosh to pay up, even if the house burns down, or whatever.
It's cheap to insure against calamitous events which are very unlikely to happen (the insurance companies are rather good at doing the sums). But it's not going to be cheap to insure against injuring yourself, or losing a pair of skis, if you spend 3 months of every winter having fun in the alps.
I have never paid for private health insurance. A few years ago we spent £17K on a by-pass operation, for the OH. Seemed a lot at the time, but we are still quids in, compared to having paid BUPA for 40 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One method used by companies/people who cannot get insurance is to set up a funded pool. Basically this involves all those who wish to obtain such insurance paying into a fund, which is used to pay out on any claims. Generally the premiums will be high to be a member of such a pool of funds, and initially the fund will be small so large claims will need to be offset (using reinsurance exess of loss) by the pool of money until the fund is of sufficient size.
If claims are made, the premiums go up! If no claims are made, the premiums can reduce a little.
You own the fund.
This type of arrangement is generally done for large uninsurable risks. Medical costs can be large, and having the back up of a fund such as this is all one would need really.
100 people at £100 pa is £10,000, enough to pay for one off piste major medical accident (maybe)!
1000 people on the other hand paying £200 might be sufficient to begin with....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| cathy wrote: |
| Bigtipper, the snowHeads insurance will be offered by a separate insurance provider - snowHeads is not actually running the scheme but the policy is being/has been tailored to meet snowHeads needs. |
Interesting. Will it be possible to top up existing policies? (we have travel cover from bank account, but doesn't cover winter sports, a complete separate policy would probably be more than a top-up through the bank, but the SH small print is probably going to be better for us)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Monium, you can choose to take off cancellation cover, personal possesions cover etc, and even stuff like piste rescue which can be covered by Carte Neige.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
the snowHeads insurance will be offered
|
Does anyone yet know when? I've ended up going with Click4Quote - refreshingly simple to arrange cover and it covers 45 days of winter sports per year. Most insurers seem to be fixated on limiting winter sports cover to 17 days, and to ascertain this you have to download the policy wording and search amongst the small print.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Yet another Direct Travel refugee: family of 2 adults (1 instructs and does race training), 3 kids (all do race training/racing), all go off piste at least a bit. Choices ltd to BMC, SCGB, BASI. BASI was cheapest by a significant sum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
