 Poster: A snowHead
|
So it's insurance renewal time, and was checking the policy wording before handing over money and noticed the following.
| Quote: |
When you are covered for Winter Sports...
This policy will cover You when You are engaging in the following sports and activities on a noncompetitive
and non-professional basis during Your Trip when You have paid the additional Winter
Sports premium:
...usual stuff...
Off piste skiing or snow-boarding (within local ski patrol guidelines)
...
You will not be covered for any claims arising directly or indirectly when engaging in or practising
for the following sports and activities:
Freestyle Skiing
Off piste skiing or snow-boarding (outside local ski patrol guidelines or in avalanche warning areas
You are not covered when engaging in organised competitions or when skiing against local
authoritative warning or advice or if not wearing suitable protective clothing including a ski helmet
at all times.
|
So, no park, helmets are now mandatory for cover and vague off-piste guidelines...
I've asked for some clarification from the insurer (OINC.COM) and underwriter (MAPFREE).
Don't forget to check yours too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Richard_Sideways,
The off piste guidelines appear meaningless.
Sounds like the end of week ski school race is banned and as for the nonsense about helmets. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
And when it says "covered" check exactly what expenses that cover includes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Written by someone who knows nothing about skiing and copied the off piste bit from America 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I tried repeatedly in the past to get a cleared explanation of what skiing against local authority warning or advice meant. Level 5 avalanche risk flags out? Level 4? Level 3?
No success!
Currently, I am going with the holiday insurance I get bundled with the household insurance (Direct Line) but getting the special bits like get you off the mountain and put pack together again along with the lift pass. Carre Neige.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
For a small extra fee it's a good idea to get carte neige or the austrian alpine clubs insurance. http://aacuk.org.uk/p-benefits - gets you rescue cover and repatriation, no BS about being off piste. I've an annual Amex travel policy which says no off piste unless with a "guide" - doesn't qualify what a guide is - I normally ski off piste with friends that are experienced and quite often locals too - which could be called 'guides' BUT just in case I'm a member of the austrian alpine club and always have my EHCR card handy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's hop this is the SCGB policy so CG can get doubly apoplectic and invoke the ghost of Arthur Lunn to rain hellfire on their ass-covering asses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard_Sideways, run away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
jbob, I would, but running invalidates my policy...
I have emailed them for a clarification on some of this, but not holding my breath for a response (I did phone them to ask but they just went 'umm' alot and said email so they could ask the underwriters)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard_Sideways, all those weasel words, you can guess just how well they will know what they mean if you need to claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
I've had a reply (of sorts)...
RS: (the policy) suggests that I am covered for "Off piste skiing or snow-boarding(within local ski patrol guidelines)"
Which guidelines does this refer to, does this cover areas outside the ski patrols control? Is cover only provided in the presence of an official guide?
OINC: The policy refers to the local ski patrol guidelines in force at the resort at the time you are skiing. You will need to check these on your arrival with the resort authorities.
RS: (the policy)says "You will not be covered for)...Off piste skiing or snow-boarding (outside local ski patrol guidelines or in avalanche warning areas)" Again which guidelines does this refer to, and does the avalanche warning areas refer to the avalanche threat level often posted or to areas prone to avalanche?
OINC: Any area subject to any kind of avalanche warning however mild or advisory is not covered.
RS: (the policy) says "You are not covered ... if not wearing suitable protective clothing including a ski helmet at all times." What protective clothing is referred to besides helmets? And can you confirm that cover is NOT provided if i'm not wearing a helmet.
OINC: You will need to take reasonable safety precautions and be wearing suitable protective clothing relevant to the type of skiing you are doing and the weather / slope conditions. As a minimum this includes a ski helmet but if you are skiing at speed on black slopes in poor weather for example suitable clothing may also include body or spine protection. The local ski resort should also have guidelines in this regard. Depending on the circumstances of the claim if you are not wearing a helmet at the time of the incident the underwriters may decline your claim.
RS: It says "(You will not be covered for)...Freestyle Skiing". I assume this applies to freestyle snowboarding too, and can you clarify to as to what 'freestyle' refers to, is all freestyle skiing/snowboarding uncovered, or is it covered in certain situation?
OINC: *no response*
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
OINC: Any area subject to any kind of avalanche warning however mild or advisory is not covered.
|
Well that's the whole skiing thing out the window then. All resorts give you the risk of avalanche on a sliding scale everyday, however mild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Avalanche Poodle wrote: |
| Written by someone who knows nothing about skiing and copied the off piste bit from America ... |
Indeed, but I would have thought they'd say "in bounds" if it was N American in origin, and if that's what they mean. It just seems confused. Perhaps the rules were written by an offshore call centre.
Attempting to weasle out of payment on a broken leg because you were not wearing a helmet and full body armour would be unreasonable, although that's what this seems to be trying to do. You can sign an unreasonable contract, but that doesn't mean it will stand up in court.
I think it's amusing that they employ scare tactics in their marketing, but the scariest things are their own contracts. I self-insure, so I will pay my own way should I need to. Should the worst happen, my estate will be saved a ton of hassle nailing some scumbag insurance company in the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
At the risk of being moaned at again by boredsurfing I will repeat my experience with dogtag who told me exactly the same thing - if there is any avalanche warning (ie even level 1), you won't be covered for skiing off piste.
Dogtag now says you are covered for off-piste provided you are not alone, and provided you are not going "against local advice". I have not bothered to ask them at what level of avalanche warning you would be considered to be skiing "against local advice" because as I DO ski off piste alone their policy is not suitable for me. I ski off piste on my own sometimes in areas recommended to me as suitable by my French instructor, not anywhere with any avalanche danger but I could definitely fall and twist a knee and need rescuing.
So in the policy cited by the OP the absolute minimum protection is a helmet and if you are on a black run in poor vis you'd be foolish to be without spine protection. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
so which company police is quoted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Fortunately I wear spine protection built into my goggles so that when it's poor visibility it deploys.
Utter utter bullsheeeet and proves the folly of underwriters - what customers want is certainty not woolly wriggle room clauses. You can see what they are getting at and you have the personal choice re helmets although to be fair they should be highlighting that as MAJOR CHANGES in any any policy renewal, but don't sit on the fence re additional equipement - at the extreme they could refuse a claim for anyone not wearing the "full GSA". Not carrying an ice axe - your claim for slipping on that icy pitch is invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
At the risk of accusing pam w, of dragging up old out of date stories.
How many years ago did Dig Tag tell you that because as you acknowledged the wording was changed 3 maybe 4 years ago.
Its a bit like you are telling people not to buy Fiats because they rust a lot.
They did years ago but today they are fine.
Frankly pam w I am surprised that DogTag haven't taken some action against you for regurgitating that ancient history of a tale to defame their company today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Bob, the company is an online one called OINC, the underwriter who writes the policy t's & c's is Mapfree.
Hmmm. *almost* worth going for it as an excuse to do the full GSA. But they'd probably just use my GoPro footage as evidence against me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
boredsurfin, but they still say effectively the same thing - about skiing against "local advice". I said that the only local advice I was aware of in my area is one steep slope beside a green run, which had "avalance danger" signs on, and the regular avalanche warning flag system, going from 1 - 5. They told me that skiing when there was ANY avalanche warning wasn't covered. I pointed out that there is always a level of avalanche warning, even if it was 1, and I was told that skiing with any avalanche warning in force would not be insured. And I gave up.
And you are not covered skiing off piste alone - it's in black and white in their current terms and conditions. Do you have shares in Dogtag - you always leap to their defence?
Have you asked them what level of avalanche warning would be deemed to be the "local advice" which would nullify your cover?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I think winter sports cover policies have always included this ambiguity. Taking this discussion in a different direction to the usual run of things, has anyone had a situation where the insurance has NOT paid out? I remember some 'journalist' posting here looking for a story where there wasn't one about insurers not paying out and no one here had a scenario where it had happened.
Disclaimer: I realise this does not get around the implications of the wording and yes in a multi million pound claim I'm sure they would wiggle out etc etc this is just sizing how big an issue this is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember folks, in a consumer sale, the law is the final arbiter of these matters - not the T&Cs of the insurance company. Where vagaries exist the judge (should it come to that) will make his decision based on what was reasonable and what was understood by both parties. A key point here is that the retail consumer is assumed to be a naive idiot who needs everything spelled out to them 
Thus (IMHO) in the 'Dog-Tag avalanche' question above, if the insurer means to exclude accompanied off-piste skiing if even a 'level 1' warning exists, they must try to say that clearly if they hope to avoid liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
pam w, Anyone needing clarification on the matter would be advised to put their question in writing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27, IME insurance companies don't readily reply to correspondence. I once took a motor policy and specifically asked on the phone for assurance that it covered trips to Europe of up to 60 days, several times a year. Yes, Yes, Yes, I was told by the lad in the call centre. However, I am not daft. I wrote a letter (not an email) explaining that this point was "of the essence of the contract" for me and asking them to confirm in writing. Never got a reply. When I came to renew, 11 months later, I asked the same question and was told no, it only covered up to 60 days in any one year. So I switched companies to one that specifically covered up to 180 days - and was thankful I'd not had to make a claim.
I imagine the low paid people in call centres are only allowed to parrot the standard terms and conditions - any "clarification" would need to be approved verbatim by underwriters, and that costs money. I did ask Dogtag for clarification from underwriters pointing out that because none of the people to whom I'd spoken had any experience of skiing in Europe they had not understood my question. There's plenty of competition out there, so in the end I gave up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Mine says:
Winter Sports Activities
You are covered to take part in the following Winter sports
activities:
On-piste – skiing, snowboarding, snow cat skiing, ski
bobbing, ice-skating, curling, tobogganing, snow-mobiling,
ice hockey, mono skiing. Off-piste – skiing and snowboarding
with a qualified instructor only. Cross-country skiing on locally
recognised tracks only.
Seems OK to me, fairly well defined but I have no idea what snow cat skiing or ski bobbing are...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
queen bodecia, yes, that's admirably clear. And if you don't intend to ski off-piste without a qualified instructor, perfect! (and presumably there's no hidden small print about having to wear a helmet?) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pam w, no mention of any clothing at all, I assume that means NatWest customers can ski naked if they want, wonder if they would honour a claim for medical treatment for frostbite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| red 27, IME insurance companies don't readily reply to correspondence. |
Indeed - all the more reason to write to them! 'No reply' = result.
The fact that you've asked whatever it is you've asked will be taken by the court as a reasonable effort on your part to establish the position and the IC will need to explain why they failed to respond.
The only real answers are:
a) couldn't be bothered
b) grossly incompetent
c) hoping to hoodwink the punter
d) wot letter your Honour? (email rules this one out)
None of these will find favour with His Worship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Insurers = total feckrs IMO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
My car insurance was great. I wanted to cover a single trip of 112 days, they only did up to 90 days, so the girl asked if I could wait 5 minutes and she would contact the underwriters. She got back to me, it did cost me £96 extra just for 22 days, and she said that because this would not be mentioned in the policy document they would email me confirmation of my extended cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| Insurers = total feckrs IMO |
A godsend IME
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| queen bodecia wrote: |
| ... I have no idea what snow cat skiing or ski bobbing are... |
Snow Cat Skiing I can help you with as my buddies run an operation. It's back country (out of bounds: not at a resort, in the wilderness) skiing or snowboarding where you use a "snow cat" to access the terrain. You get maybe a dozen runs a day, all fresh tracks. A "snow cat" is like a piste basher except it's got a cabin on the back with about 12 seats in it for you and your mates. You'll have a couple of qualified guides to look after you plus all safety gear and training provided. Overall it's a little like heli skiing only slower paced and cheaper, plus they can ride when the weather's too bad to fly.
So that wording is just wrong, as you don't do "snow cat" skiing on pistes, the whole point is that you're paying to ride untracked stuff, not pistes! But as "snow cat skiing" is mostly (not exclusively) done in BC where the hospitals are public and the rescue is free, they would obviously refuse to take your money anyway.
On the "off piste" section, they say "instructor" where they probably mean "guide". Most instructors teach beginners; guiding a group off piste would require a different skill set.
They apparently don't know what "off-piste" means or what an instructor is.
If you think about the cost of decent legal advice, I would not think it would ever make business sense for an insurance company to provide any legal "clarification" at all. Paying for an hour of lawyer's time to write some clarification would dwarf the size of any possible premium. If you ask, they don't want your business, I would say. My guess is that they paid some second-rate legal people who obviously have little snow sports knowledge to write a bunch of stuff which they hope they can use to wriggle out with.
As above, if it's unreasonable or not reasonably understandable it may not stand up in court, but the problem would be that you'd have to issue proceedings against them, which would not be cheap for any significant claim. It would be interesting to hear about some real cases, but I'd bet that when they settle they agree secrecy.
Ski bobbing. Not that you wanted to know really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
