 Poster: A snowHead
|
I'm surprised to hear that there are places where they don't record the settings. They both record the settings and get you to sign them at the time they set them up in BC. As pointed out, this is to protect the renter; it's not for the benefit of the customer.
Waivers: it depends what you mean. A contract which absolves you from criminal responsibility would not stand. On the other hand the NHS makes use of waivers all the time - people have to "waiver" their rights to privacy or the NHS can't share their records with their care home, so the bills don't get paid. Most action sports waivers are worthless, which is why I never read the action sports or software ones.
Rubbish. The job of insurers IS to pay out, for valid claims
The job of an insurance company is in fact to make money. That's what the small print and everything else is about. In my experience what's been said here regarding their reluctance is entirely correct. Their small print is not necessarily enforceable, although you may have to litigate to prove that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| philwig wrote: |
Rubbish. The job of insurers IS to pay out, for valid claims
The job of an insurance company is in fact to make money. That's what the small print and everything else is about. In my experience what's been said here regarding their reluctance is entirely correct. Their small print is not necessarily enforceable, although you may have to litigate to prove that. |
Thanks - that's basically what I was getting at. Insurance claims are generally bigger than premiums, so if insurers paid every claim, they'd probably go bust. Hence why they employ people whose specialism, by one way or another, is to wiggle them out of paying.
For me - that's by being an expert in theatrical lifting. I go into a theatre and investigate the incident, the results of said investigation might be that I absolve the insurance company from having to pay by either proving that another party was to blame (in which case their insurer gets whacked), or that my client's policyholder was not fulfilling their obligations and therefore isn't covered. My ex-girlfriend spent 3 years working at another major insurer (by coincidence - we were together before either of us worked for an insurer) as essentially a private detective. She'd trawl peoples' social media accounts for proof that they were being untruthful in their insurance claims, and even do real-life surveillance on people. There was a guy who claimed his car crash whiplash was so bad he couldn't work... so she went and took photos of him playing rugby one afternoon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@dp, A decade in insurance and a few car and bike claims tell me that you should get a job with a better company.
Catching people being untruthful is fair enough but IME most insurers accept liability when they should. They just don't want to get ripped off by the false claims. I'd guess that you will wait a very very long time before a UK insurer sends someone to check a DIN setting on a ski after an accident. If you destroy your knees and get a medivac they will pay regardless of fault. Can you find a single case where someone has been refused a payout because they adjusted their own bindings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
you should get a job with a better company.
|
On what grounds? They're one of the biggest insurers in the UK, so I wonder what you mean by 'better'?
By the way my only job is for myself. They're my client, not my employer.
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| Can you find a single case where someone has been refused a payout because they adjusted their own bindings? |
Can you find a single case where such details have been publicly disclosed?
A decade in insurance? How many times did you publish the reason you didn't pay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@dp, Genuine claims were paid. Fraudulent claims were prosecuted at which stage they would become public knowledge and reported in local press. The more fraudulent ones might make national press. If there wasn't a fraudulent claim then it would be paid. The grey area ones where fault was questionable would end up in court and therefore be published.
Can we safely assume that you can't find any case where a UK insurer has inspected bindings after an accident resulting in a denied claim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
I get your point, but I really don't think/observe that's what happens in practice. I know for a fact that my brother in law's shop (in France) doesn't record what DIN he sets customer's skis on. So there's absolutely no way to establish negligence. Last time I used hire skis in the UK they didn't record them (Braehead, ski test) and frankly the biggest liability was the (appalling) rental ski boots. |
Have to say I'm surprised by that!
Every hire shop I've been to (or can remember going to!) have had an electronic/bar code scanning system on skis and boots recording all this sort of data (plus where you're staying etc in case you try to nick a pair), and every shop I've had bindings mounted at has asked me to fill out a form for DIN settings on carbon copy paper - one copy for me and one copy for their records. Several have actually come out - genuinely, and without prompting from me - (probably based on the fact that we're talking about big free ride skis) and said things along the lines of "hey, we can only legally set the bindings at 8 'cos that's what the scale says and our insurers won't be happy if we deviate, but you know to turn them up yourself right?"
As far as I'm aware keeping records like that is standard industry practice (though yes, at ski tests I just get asked what DIN I want).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@clarky999, maybe I've just not paid enough attention. They do scan the bar codes. But I'm pretty sure there's no recording of the DINs. I'll ask but not this weekend.
On reflection in the U.S., I suspect the waiver signed had a record of what I asked them to be put to, copies to me and the shop. It was a few years back, failure of memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| ... Every hire shop I've been to (or can remember going to!) have had an electronic/bar code scanning system on skis and boots recording all this sort of data (plus where you're staying etc in case you try to nick a pair)... |
I think the bar code scanning is primarily for easy stock control, and to identify when people accidentally return a different set of kit - something that is surprisingly easy to do when it is stored overnight in a large ski locker / boot room. Over the years I have known people using someone else's skis, poles, and even boots; with the last only identified when the wrong set were returned to the hire shop!
I suspect the larger chains, with common computer systems, may record DIN settings along with everything else; but doubt whether every independent single outlet operation does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| ecureuil wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| ... Every hire shop I've been to (or can remember going to!) have had an electronic/bar code scanning system on skis and boots recording all this sort of data (plus where you're staying etc in case you try to nick a pair)... |
I think the bar code scanning is primarily for easy stock control, and to identify when people accidentally return a different set of kit - something that is surprisingly easy to do when it is stored overnight in a large ski locker / boot room. Over the years I have known people using someone else's skis, poles, and even boots; with the last only identified when the wrong set were returned to the hire shop!
I suspect the larger chains, with common computer systems, may record DIN settings along with everything else; but doubt whether every independent single outlet operation does. |
I'm fairly certain it's for all of the above, including DIN calculations and customer records: https://rentmaxx.com/tl_files/downloads/Product_brochures/digiCOM_rentmaxx_rental_software_en.pdf
See page 29 here for more details of rental record keeping obligations (shop must maintain records for 5 years. I assume brands other than Salomon require the same for indemnification): https://www.rasc.ru/gear/pdf/SPM_07_ENvCD.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@clarky999, just noting...
1. That's a US/Canada manual and I don't think you can generalise it to Europe.
2. The release form offered doesn't have a field to record the "patient" data nor the DIN actually set.
I realise many shops in Europe now heed the "indemnification" idea but I didn't think it was a legal requirement to do so. I know that the shops in Mürren renting out race skis are most certainly renting out bindings that would not be indemnified!
Also, last time I rented a pair of DHs, one of the shop owners refused to let me ski on anything below 10 (I weigh 60kgs) as it would be too dangerous 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
A bar code is just a key to a database record in a computer so won't record what DIN the ski was set to by the tech. If they have a full electronic fitting and inventory system where you/they enter your age/height/weight in to the system (boot length would come from scanning boot bar code) then it would also record what the ski tech SHOULD have set them to. Unless they are taking a photo of the DIN pointers on the bindings after setting them/they start replacing ski techs with machines that can set everything automatically they can't have a record of what the ski was actually set to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mjit, yes, clearly. It just makes it more efficient.
@under a new name, definitely every shop (UK and Austria) I've had bindings mounted in have kept a copy of the data I gave them and the DIN calculation, and given me carbon copy of the same. Maybe this is mandatory or maybe it isn't; we probably need Spyderjon or another shop owner to answer definitively.
I checked Marker's (up to date, European, straight from their website) manual (download here https://www.marker.net/en/support/service-downloads/) too and it specifically states (my *emphasis* ):
WORKSHOP RECORDS:
As a MARKER certi ed technician, you are required to keep accurate and complete records of all work performed on any MARKER ski binding. Workshop records must be kept on le.
The workshop form includes the following required information:
►Skier name and address
► Skier weight / height / age / skier type
► Ski brand / model / serial number
► Boot brand / model / sole length
►Ski binding model
►Skier code
►System inspection result
► ***Visual indicator setting for each toe and heel*** ►Mechanical test result
►Date of inspection
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Isn't the point here this: I hire some ski's. I adjust the binding. I fall and hurt myself and have to be transported off the mountain and treated. Who, what, how is going to be looking at the binding adjustment I made and who, what, how do they use it to deny an insurance claim. Also, the binding could fail for all sorts of reasons. I had a metal plate sitting underneath the back binding and integral to it, break in two. Who knows if this was a maintenance or manufacturing issue or age and wear and tear.
I would certainly expect insurers to do some due diligence to ensure the claim was not fraudulent but I think a punter adjusting their bindings wouldn't be enough to throw out a claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
@dp, Genuine claims were paid. Fraudulent claims were prosecuted at which stage they would become public knowledge and reported in local press. The more fraudulent ones might make national press. If there wasn't a fraudulent claim then it would be paid. The grey area ones where fault was questionable would end up in court and therefore be published.
|
Sorry but I cannot believe that this is the case - or at least would be within the ski industry.
You're telling me that every single claim which was presented to your company, over a 10 year span, that wasn't 'fraudulent', was paid out by yourselves? That you never sought liability from another party's insurer? The only reason I can think of that, is that you were working in an area of insurance where there is no 3rd party to take responsibility other than your client.
When you drive, you know how they try to determine who caused the accident? That's because they're trying to find out who's insurer pays. Your insurer doesn't give a tom tit about who actually caused it - out of any moral desire to know... they just want to know if they're going to have to foot the bill or whether they can get somebody else to pay. That is how it works. The reason you swap insurance details with the other driver is because your insurers talk directly to one another, they work out who is liable, and if necessary, your insurer seeks the money from their insurer to pay for the damage.
I do not believe for a minute that any insurance company would simply pay the claim providing that it was truthful, unless either:
- The sums you are talking about are too small to be worth contesting (IE mobile phone insurance)
- That the field of insurance you were working in only deals with one party where there is no scope to find liability in somebody else.
No insurer will pay unless they have to. They are loathed to pay. But not least, no insurer is going to pay out on an incident that was principally caused by a party who is insured by somebody else. That would just be utterly batshit mental. How could you operate an insurer in that manner? Where somebody insured by a different insurer goes around causing accidents, and you foot the bill? You couldn't sustain that.
| Quote: |
Can we safely assume that you can't find any case where a UK insurer has inspected bindings after an accident resulting in a denied claim? |
Why don't you provide some information which states that the incorrect setting of a ski binding has never and will never be considered as part of an insurance claim?
I haven't looked. I said that an insurer could ask to see such information and that had you interfered with the setting of bindings it could be detrimental to your insurers' ability to claim against the insurers of the rental shop. That's a big difference. I maintain that an insurer could still request to see such information. Probably not by walking around the mountain for several hours looking for the ski but actually just by asking the rental shop to view their records of what the bindings were set to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Layne wrote: |
I would certainly expect insurers to do some due diligence to ensure the claim was not fraudulent but I think a punter adjusting their bindings wouldn't be enough to throw out a claim. |
I never said that it was either. You said that, and you alone.
What I said, is that a punter adjusting their bindings to a different setting to what the ski rental shop set them to, could be enough to prevent a ski rental shop's insurers from taking liability for a claim, in the event that your insurer wants to claim the money from the rental shop's insurer on the grounds that the incorrect functioning of the bindings caused your accident.
Please read that. Maybe twice. That is what I am talking about. I am not suggesting a claim won't be paid. I am suggesting that a claim won't be paid BY A PARTICULAR INSURER. That is how insurance works. You make the claim and it gets bounced around various insurers until the one that represents the liable party pays up. If your insurer wants to suggest that incorrect binding settings caused your accident, they might seek to claim from the rental shop's insurer. If it transpires that you changed the setting from what the rental shop set you, then all bets are off on that front. It won't necessarily prevent you getting paid, but it will prevent your insurer from claiming from the rental shop's insurer and that could influence the settlement that you receive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@clarky999, apologies for taking us so far down this particular rabbit hole . . .
That's for installation / service work, no? - not for rentals I suspect. I'm pretty sure mechanical tests aren't carried out on every rental issued... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| dp wrote: |
| What I said, is that a punter adjusting their bindings to a different setting to what the ski rental shop set them to, could be enough to prevent a ski rental shop's insurers from taking liability for a claim, in the event that your insurer wants to claim the money from the rental shop's insurer on the grounds that the incorrect functioning of the bindings caused your accident. |
Sure. But you need to quantify the possibility/probability of that happening. Because, yes, it could happen. Equally, I could swim the channel. But you need to attach some likelihood to it. To discuss under what circumstances it could happen. And hence the likelihood.
| dp wrote: |
| Please read that. Maybe twice. That is what I am talking about. I am not suggesting a claim won't be paid. I am suggesting that a claim won't be paid BY A PARTICULAR INSURER. That is how insurance works. You make the claim and it gets bounced around various insurers until the one that represents the liable party pays up. If your insurer wants to suggest that incorrect binding settings caused your accident, they might seek to claim from the rental shop's insurer. If it transpires that you changed the setting from what the rental shop set you, then all bets are off on that front. It won't necessarily prevent you getting paid, but it will prevent your insurer from claiming from the rental shop's insurer and that could influence the settlement that you receive. |
Again, the question. What percentage of claims are made on the shops insurer, rather than the punters? What percentage are unpaid because the punter as been negligent? What percentage are entirely fraudulent?
Let's just bear in mind where all this started - with the OP saying their bindings were often underset to their perception and someone suggesting they just just adjust them upwards. Is there really any insurance related consideration to be made there? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Layne wrote: |
Again, the question. What percentage of claims are made on the shops insurer, rather than the punters? What percentage are unpaid because the punter as been negligent? What percentage are entirely fraudulent?
|
I don't know. What's with the expectation that I have all the ski insurance industry's statistics just hanging around my house?
The fact is that insurers trading amongst themselves is commonplace. Like any claim which involves more than 1 party will involve more than 1 insurer. Fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Layne I know a lot about insurance claims because I act on behalf of an insurer. That doesn't mean that every time a claim is made on somebody's ski insurance that they cc me in on it.
The relevance being that if you hire your skis from a shop then there is a second party involved. So if the claim involves anything which is on the hire, then the ski rental shop's insurer will probably be involved in any claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But won't the hirer have entered a contractual agreement under which they release the shop, and the ski/binding manufacturer, from any legal liability? So there is only one party involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| dp wrote: |
| ... any claim which involves more than 1 party will involve more than 1 insurer. Fact. |
Interesting fact.
This time last year someone ran into me on a roundabout. I was working so hadn't got around to contacting my insurer. His insurer (Direct Line)contacted me within a hour to arrange repairs. They didn't even take a statement from me, they organised a replacement vehicle while the repairs we being carried out and I didn't have to even temporarily pay the excess.
They didn't make any effort to divert the blame or the claim....doesn't really stack up with your "Fact."
Working as an IFA I sold a lot of term assurance which is more one sided but also sold general insurance such as B&C, car insurance, third party indemnity insurance and PI insurance.
The number of claims refused on the two indemnity insurances was very small. One questionable one where I sold all the policies involved to both parties. Client goes to the pub, has a few glasses of wine, falls down a step, breaks her hip and wrecks her knee. She had private health insurance (including a clause stating that injury or illness caused by alcohol or drug abuse wouldn't be covered.) They paid for her hospital treatment and subsequent recovery treatment. The pubs third party indemnity insurance paid for her loss of income. If they were all as devious as you suggest they could both have wiped their hands as she was drunk and left it to NHS and Social Services to deal with.
Asking someone to prove that something has never happened is a fairly daft response when asked to provide one example where it did happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know nothing about insurance but did they run into the back of you or did they admit full responsibility (something I think insurance companies don't like you to do) - because if so that would have something to do with it.
Maybe they had a faulty brake as a result of a DIY brake disc change, or had just changed the brake pedal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| .....That is why I asked dp to post an example of where an insurer had inspected bindings to determine fault and pass the blame...... |
This does happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Thornyhill, I'm inclined to agree with you but my brother worked with someone that wrote off a nice Integra Type R. Chap had a host of undeclared mods that he managed to change back before inspection (air filter, exhaust etc.) but didn't manage to get a payout because of tinted windows (which he couldn't swap out because they'd shattered, or so I understand it). In this instance it was just one bloke rolling his car though, no other party involved, and obviously the payout to replace would've been a bit more than a bit of bodywork and a hire car for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@under a new name, what's a park rat? Should I shoot or poison it?@SnoodlesMcFlude,
| Quote: |
'steeze', 'double cork' or 'nose butter
|
In english?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| @Thornyhill, I'm inclined to agree with you but my brother worked with someone that wrote off a nice Integra Type R. Chap had a host of undeclared mods that he managed to change back before inspection (air filter, exhaust etc.) but didn't manage to get a payout because of tinted windows (which he couldn't swap out because they'd shattered, or so I understand it). In this instance it was just one bloke rolling his car though, no other party involved, and obviously the payout to replace would've been a bit more than a bit of bodywork and a hire car for a while. |
That is what I would call a non disclosure.
Do you have any mods?
No.
OK - Here is the premium.
Yes.
OK - Here is the new premium based on what we are insuring.
I had one critical illness claim turned down because the client/patient 'forgot' to tell me that that he had a heart attack and a bypass about 3 years previously. He had another heart attack, the insurance company got hold of his notes and refused the claim. If he had disclosed the previous heart attack his premium would have been substantially higher but he would have got the payout.
When you sign the proposal you agree to act 'in utmost good faith'. When the insurer issues the policy they also agree to act in utmost good faith. If your mate had acted appropriately he would have been paid.
"Contracts of insurance and reinsurance are contracts of utmost good faith. In the event that either party fails to observe utmost good faith towards the other in regard to the negotiation of cover then the other party may avoid the contract. The duty of utmost good faith requires each party to inform the other all material facts during the negotiation of the placement, renewal or alteration of cover. An insured has a separate duty of good faith when making a claim under an insurance policy. "
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Thornyhill wrote: |
| ... "Contracts of insurance and reinsurance are contracts of utmost good faith. In the event that either party fails to observe utmost good faith towards the other in regard to the negotiation of cover then the other party may avoid the contract. The duty of utmost good faith requires each party to inform the other all material facts during the negotiation of the placement, renewal or alteration of cover. An insured has a separate duty of good faith when making a claim under an insurance policy. " |
I think that changed a few years ago - at least under English Law - so that for consumer contracts the obligation on the insured is now essentially just to answer the specific questions asked by the insurer. The previous obligation, to disclose "all material facts" with the insurer having the option to void the contact if you missed anything, was felt to be a bit one-sided towards insurers. Business insurance is slightly different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@SnoodlesMcFlude, the only remaining question is why? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Gordyjh, why does anyone ski?
It's the same with a lot of hobbies, there will be a jargon to it and not everyone will understand the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@ecureuil, Insurance Act 2015. Part 5.
The only bit that changed was that that avoidance was not the only remedy. This was a clarification in wording more than anything else as the previous wording allowed the 'sufferer' to void the contract based on any technicality while the new version means it has to be a relevant technicality.
"Under the Act, the duty of utmost good faith survives, but the sole remedy of avoidance for its breach is abolished, and is replaced with a new range of proportionate remedies which depend on whether the insured’s breach of the Duty was deliberate or reckless, or not, and what the insurer would have done if the Duty had been fulfilled.
Although contracts of insurance remain contracts of the utmost good faith as a matter of principle, breach of that duty will have no remedy. The proportionate remedies are set out in Schedule 1 of the Act"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Thornyhill. Insurance Act 2015 covers disclosure and misrepresentation in business and other non-consumer insurance contracts only - see paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Notes.
For consumer contracts Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 applies. Paragraph 2(5): "Accordingly— (a) any rule of law to the effect that a consumer insurance contract is one of the utmost good faith is modified to the extent required by the provisions of this Act". Those modifications essentially just require consumers to answer the insurer's questions honestly and reasonably.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nice Integra Type R
An oxymoron.
Those modifications essentially just require consumers to answer the insurer's questions honestly and reasonably.
I haven't gone to the source, but the quote listed by Thornyhill suggests that's not complete. The point in his quote is that they can't (say) simply avoid their liability because of a possibly unrelated and minor failure to observe the contract.
So let's say that there was a small-print clause which said you had to wear a helmet, and the punter did not do that. They are in breach of their contract.
However a claim for a broken leg would not be disputable by the insurer under these 2015 terms, from my reading of them, because the helmet is (in my story) not relevant to the broken leg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ecureuil, 2015, 2012, 2010, 2007, 2004 Acts and Amendments are essentially efforts to stop insurers from doing what @dp is claiming that they do. Rather obscurely, they all relate back to very early 20th century mariners laws which weren't really designed to cover buildings and contents, third party indemnity, travel insurance (well it sort of was, but not what we consider travel insurance) and car insurance.
@philwig,
"So let's say that there was a small-print clause which said you had to wear a helmet, and the punter did not do that. They are in breach of their contract.
However a claim for a broken leg would not be disputable by the insurer under these 2015 terms, from my reading of them, because the helmet is (in my story) not relevant to the broken leg"
Yep...previous to 2015, 2012, 2010 and probably 100 other versions the wording was that either party may void the contract in the event of a breach.
In your story they (insurer) had the legal option to void the contract entirely. This has been removed through various iterations but IME they usually played fair and didn't exercise the option.
I have never found a case where the insured wanted to void the contract....strange that 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
):
