 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
A quick analysis suggests >1mio skier days for the Chamonix valley. Injury rates (requiring treatment) seem to be broadly around 2/1,000 skier-days.
There are 35 rental shops per the T.O.
So that's sort of loosely 6 injuries per shop.
Lot's of litigious opportunity? Or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Not here but I've had most rental places ask me to sign the form when I've asked for the bindings set different (lower) to chart recommendations - Chillfactore does this too.
Didn't some north eastern woman try this after a Bulgarian holiday landed her in hospital? somebody posted the story on here but I couldn't get the page to stay open long enough to read the full tale, don't know if they got very far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
How would an insurance company know whether your bindings were set correctly or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I think that dp is generally right that insurers look at ways not to pay, however I don’t think that they have much scope to do so with skiing. It’s relatively easy to shut down a site where staging equipment has fallen, but stopping someone from moving a pair of skis on the mountain is a bigger task.
What I would say though is that my small claim was made through private medical insurance of my company and they had no issue with covering costs even though I was clear that the injury happened while skiing. To be honest I was expecting them to refer me to my travel insurance, but that didn’t happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@under a new name, wasn't asked if they were owned or rental skis, never mind the DIN setting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I had my injury I was asked BT both tour operator Rep and insurer all about bindings, ski condition, did, who & why set up, chosen settings, if properly maintained, etc.
Many hire places, including Chill Factors and I recall in Scotland (long time since I hired in UK) ask you to sign waivers whether you choose setting or they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect, if you are hiring skis you are doing so in good faith with the reasonable expectation they will be sufficiently well maintained and correctly adjusted. Which is probably as much as you can be expected to do. So it would seem unreasonable to reject a claim even if they were set up wrongly. Proving that you had tampered with them post hiring would also be tricky. I'd guess the most serious accidents (death / life changing injury territory) would get more scrutiny and perhaps some recource to the shops public liability insurance if they seemed responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
To clarify my point from the other thread.
It's not that they'll refuse to pay out because your bindings are incorrectly adjusted. It's more that if they believe that your rental bindings could have contributed to the accident, they may ask - through the insurer of the rental shop - to see evidence that the bindings were correctly set. Failure to provide evidence that the bindings were correctly set could lead to a situation where a rental shop has to take partial liability (read LIABILITY, not RESPONSIBILITY) for an incident because they cannot prove that their actions did not prevent it.
The frustrating thing about insurance is that the policyholders - who are usually the industry experts in the field - often do not actually get a chance to speak, and the insurers will work out liability amongst themselves - even though they're not industry experts at all (this is why you do at least have brokers, who will be insurance specialists within a set field). The terms of your policy will often say that the underwriters get the last word and whilst, if you're unhappy with the service you can appeal it, there's no suggestion that your point of view in the incident will be taken into account.
Insurers employ people whose sole job is to investigate claims and either (a) prove that the claim does not need to be paid, or (b) prove that somebody else is sufficiently liable in the claim for their insurer to pay the claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been involved as an expert witness in a number of cases were injured skiers/their insurance companies were taking action against the retailer. My involvement has been as little as a quick telephone conversation with a covering letter right through to the detailed testing of the skis, analysis of the retailers methodology/supporting documentation, providing all the din documentation/specs and preparing to be a witness at court.
In all of the cases I was acting in support of the skier and all of these case involved significant amounts of money (relative to the claimants injuries, lost of income & curtailment of future sporting activities). One retailer was in the US, a few were in Europe and a couple were in the UK.
All of the cases were eventually settled out of court with the retailer losing and their public liability insurance footing the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@dp, interesting, as was your post on the other thread, thank you.
@spyderjon, also.
I wonder how this will evolve?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
I wonder how this will evolve? |
We're in a very litigation-heavy society. In my day job, people are often literally more concerned about staying out of the firing line if something goes wrong, than they are about preventing stuff going wrong. It's very frustrating - people saying "that doesn't look safe... but I'm not getting involved because then I'll be complicit in it". Which is kinda true - if you get involved and fail to get the situation improved, you're in more trouble than if you just pretended you didn't see anything.
Most skiing accidents are probably dealt with amicably by insurers. But there will inevitably be life-changing injuries where the insurer is faced with a sizeable enough bill that it's worth paying the services of a pro to get them out of the poo. A shop that sets up skis for customers, but doesn't keep records of what they've done, is an easy target. Their lack of record-keeping means you can scrutinise them and question their work output and they've got little to defend themselves with because they've always relied on reputation and worth of mouth - which in the insurance business isn't worth anything.
It's just not about right or wrong of who's actually responsible. It's just sometimes about identifying who's paperwork is shoddy enough that you can question their integrity in the safe knowledge that they don't have the resources to argue it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your posts make interesting reading about how the insurance side of things work.
On the shop side all of the rental shops I have ever worked with (France) keep a record of the din settings they use for each client (mostly this is automated now) and many will refuse to set to guest requested settings (beyond a small margin).
Machines exist which give you a little din setting ticket based on your height and weight which it measures independantly in order to keep it objective and many of the larger shop chains use these. The company who we work with have an online ordering thingy (no shop) and it calculates the settings automatically based on figures entered by the guests - again to keep the settings independant.
Presumably that's best practise in order to deal with insurance . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@Snow and Sunshine, absolutely - it's pretty fool proof.
"The guest entered their details, and we set up the skis to the requirements we were given" - that's pretty valid although some insurers might still argue that you had a duty of care to check that those details supplied, were correct. As I previously alluded to, how anal they get will generally be correlated to how much money is at stake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Sorry to drag this on but I still don't get it. Scenario is this:
Insurer gets a hefty claim.
Hires "pro" investigator to see if he can see a way out of paying.
Pro speaks to hire shop and asks for information on what DIN they set the punters ski.
Shop says sorry we don't keep those records.
Insurer/Pro then says well then it was your fault/liability? How does that work exactly - surely there is no evidence either way that the shop set the bindings wrongly. Now, if it was legal requirement... but my understanding is that it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
What about people who own their own skis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
| What about people who own their own skis? |
I was never asked anything about my skis when I required repatriation after a broken tib plateau. Medical bills weren't huge though because the hospital diagnosed me initially as ligament damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Layne wrote: |
Sorry to drag this on but I still don't get it. Scenario is this:
Insurer gets a hefty claim.
Hires "pro" investigator to see if he can see a way out of paying.
Pro speaks to hire shop and asks for information on what DIN they set the punters ski.
Shop says sorry we don't keep those records.
Insurer/Pro then says well then it was your fault/liability? How does that work exactly - surely there is no evidence either way that the shop set the bindings wrongly. Now, if it was legal requirement... but my understanding is that it isn't. |
When I worked for a very large company we were regularly subjected to claims. The first thing that would be asked for by the claimants solicitor would be the records; of the incident, and of the engineers training and qualifications, etc. Any gaps in the records and it was game over and pay up. One tactic would be for them to wait as long as possible before asking in the hope there would be some paperwork missing. I think the cut off for a claim was two years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
| What about people who own their own skis? |
My thought too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It's a legal requirement for rental operations to keep records. It's not in the EU (although it is in NA) when bindings are mounted on customers skis but it's considered industry best practice and it's covered in every binding tech manual and on every certification course - so the retailer would be screwed if they didn't.
If a shop adjusts/checks a customers bindings (ie when not a sale or rental) then the same best practice re record keeping applies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@spyderjon, bowing to your superior knowledge and insight, I am guessing I just haven’t noticed particular key strokes then. But I am going to ask when next up.
I will maintain that Inferno DH skis are not recorded however!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
It's a legal requirement for rental operations to keep records. It's not in the EU (although it is in NA) when bindings are mounted on customers skis but it's considered industry best practice and it's covered in every binding tech manual and on every certification course - so the retailer would be screwed if they didn't.
If a shop adjusts/checks a customers bindings (ie when not a sale or rental) then the same best practice re record keeping applies. |
What "records" must they keep please? Do they have to record the height, weight, ability, age of the skier and therefore what DIN was chosen? What testing of the bindings are done and do they have to record that? Also what checks and audits are done on these records? Are they only checked when there is investigation? Do the staff have to be qualified technicians? When you say "retailer would be screwed if they didn't." you mean they would be prosecuted, not allowed to practice?
Genuinely intrigued by the situation here and what is expected as the impression that rental shops or rather there staff are not always as diligent as these comments might suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Layne, the following must be recorded: name, height, weight, age, boot sole length, skier type, din setting & customers signature. Some shops, like myself, allow a client requested din setting, others don't.
Rental skis bindings have to be routinely inspected/tested based upon usage. And the torque testing machines have to be calibrated after every so many tests or every two years (IIRC). For many years now the torque testing machines have been linked to the rental computer systems and the individual bar code stickers on each pair of ski so the system know when to flag a particular pair of skis for testing.
I don't know if the records are ever inspected as that would be up to each nation to police but I suspect it's only when there's an investigation.
The manufacturers tech manuals state that all binding adjustments have to carried out by qualified technicians. However the qualification requirements are a joke.
By "screwed" I mean that they'd lose the case & their insurers would have to pay out.
I wouldn't trust any rental shop employee! There's plenty of EU 'laws/best practices' that the individual nations in theory support but in reality are just ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| spyderjon wrote: |
@Layne, the following must be recorded: name, height, weight, age, boot sole length, skier type, din setting & customers signature. Some shops, like myself, allow a client requested din setting, others don't.
Rental skis bindings have to be routinely inspected/tested based upon usage. And the torque testing machines have to be calibrated after every so many tests or every two years (IIRC). For many years now the torque testing machines have been linked to the rental computer systems and the individual bar code stickers on each pair of ski so the system know when to flag a particular pair of skis for testing. |
I'm pleasantly surprised at that.
| spyderjon wrote: |
| I don't know if the records are ever inspected as that would be up to each nation to police but I suspect it's only when there's an investigation. |
Yes, that is what I would suspect aswell. I would hazard a guess that the number of cases of fault doesn't warrant the cost of pre-emptive measures. Whether the cases of fault reported actually matches reality may of course be out of line or not routinely properly recorded, checked.
| spyderjon wrote: |
| The manufacturers tech manuals state that all binding adjustments have to carried out by qualified technicians. However the qualification requirements are a joke. |
So in essence whilst the first part mentioned above may be strong, and the second so so, this is shall we say a bit of a weak link.
| spyderjon wrote: |
By "screwed" I mean that they'd lose the case & their insurers would have to pay out.
I wouldn't trust any rental shop employee! There's plenty of EU 'laws/best practices' that the individual nations in theory support but in reality are just ignored. |
So I think what we are down to is that the "records" are done because they save the shops insurers paying out i.e., they have made sure it's done legislative and practically, and they don't want to stump up. However, the punter can still be banjaxed because the non-paper bit - how competent the technician is in reality a lottery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a ski renter quite a few years ago I requested and got a hitter than recommended DIN setting. Skiing down through trees one if my skis found a void in the snow - the tail of the ski dropped down and the binding was subject to a considerable but progressive loading. It didn't release, and my achilles tendon ruptured. I had requested the binding setting increase - it would have been wrong to sue the shop.
As a ski owner rather than a renter, I take my skis to spyderjon for a bindings check everyone and then. It just seems sensible to know that the skis are likely to release when they should, and not when they shouldn't. As a side comment, I took his advice to reduce the DIN setting because of my age - and had no problems with unwanted release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
We need a new thread where ONLY people that have been injured and claimed on insurance, successfully or unsuccessfully, answer. Detailing the situation ie hire skis, own skis,DIN choice etc. Too much speculation on here
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Litigant crazy society. Point the finger and play the blame game, aided and abetted by trial attorneys who rake in heaps of lucre and "expert witnesses" who collect under the table. It's a full boogy Bill Sikes and Fagin show. So, by all means go out and have a good time and if anything happens its never your fault. You can always bank on that...............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| arcsinice wrote: |
| Litigant crazy society. Point the finger and play the blame game, aided and abetted by trial attorneys who rake in heaps of lucre and "expert witnesses" who collect under the table. It's a full boogy Bill Sikes and Fagin show. So, by all means go out and have a good time and if anything happens its never your fault. You can always bank on that............... |
I think most snowheads are worried about getting injured on or off piste, where they need to bring you down off the mountain (possibly in a heli), get treated, need change of flights, additional seats etc etc. And hoping that the insurance policy they bought covers the costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Layne wrote: |
Sorry to drag this on but I still don't get it. Scenario is this:
Insurer gets a hefty claim.
Hires "pro" investigator to see if he can see a way out of paying.
Pro speaks to hire shop and asks for information on what DIN they set the punters ski.
Shop says sorry we don't keep those records.
Insurer/Pro then says well then it was your fault/liability? How does that work exactly - surely there is no evidence either way that the shop set the bindings wrongly. Now, if it was legal requirement... but my understanding is that it isn't. |
No - this is where people go wrong.
The Pro doesn't speak to the shop. The pro (working on behalf of the insurer) raises the possibility of a defective binding causing additional injury, and recommends that the skier's insurer investigate that possibility. The skier's insurer then speaks to the shop's insurer. This is how insurance works. All the insurers of the involved parties (and more parties can become involved as a claim develops) basically work together to decide which insurer is liable for what.
The shop's insurer then speaks to the job. They say that a claim could potentially be made against them (the shop) by a skier who's had an injury and they, the shop's insurer, want to see records of the binding settings which were used for the skis that were rented to Mr J Bloggs on the 13th March; and perhaps what details they have on record for the skier which led them to set the bindings in that manner.
If the shop does not have those figures, it leaves the insurer in a pickle. The insurer at this point would often just pay the bill, as they cannot provide evidence to the skier's insurer that the incorrect setting of the binding was not to blame for the incident. The shop's insurer would then review their policy price to the ski shop, and either decide that the shop pays enough of a premium that they can write off the claim, or they might decide to hike the premium. This is why being proactive about things like record-keeping can afford you a better premium with your insurer - as you're essentially a lower-risk client.
My experience of the insurance industry is that even worldwide, they're relatively in cahoots with each other. Money changes hands between all of them as they settle the cases amongst themselves, and then work out which one of them will foot the bill. If the skier's insurer raises the possibility that defective, or incorrectly set bindings contributed to the seriousness of the injury, and the shop's insurer cannot get, from the shop, any evidence to counter that claim - as jbob states - it's game over and time to pay.
As jbob also states - in major companies, such claims will be daily business. The skier's insurer will be looking for a way not to pay and I expect that when the skier was on rental skis, they don't even need a pro to tell them to ask for DIN settings, it's just on the usual checklist. The shop's insurers will be used to dealing with the request, and it'll be fairly standard business thoroughfare for them. Hence why I would expect many insurers to require that their policyholders keep those records in order to comply with their insurance requirements.
| Themasterpiece wrote: |
| bar shaker wrote: |
| What about people who own their own skis? |
My thought too? |
This is all about transferring the liability to another insurer - not about refusing to pay at all.
When you have your own skis, and you set your own DINs, there is no third party to transfer the liability to. So your insurer doesn't get the opportunity to raise the question with the hire company's insurer, as no hire company exists. It'll just be an avenue they don't get to explore.
They're not trying to actually blame the skis because they have any interest in what caused the accident. They don't care why you hurt yourself. They just care about whether they can get somebody else to pay. So if all the factors are first-person, then the answer is no. Rental skis add a third person into the affair and it's just an opportunity to make somebody else pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I think there are two separate threads to this, the first is about who pays for the medical expenses, repatriation etc and who pays for any additional damages claimed for personal injury. As a former insurance lawyer I would expect the travel insurer to automatically cover the medical expenses and any repatriation etc but if there is a question about personal injury that is a much wider issue. An insured in the first case can expect the insurer to pay and to claim back from any third party from whom they think they can seek some reimbursement so yes they may ask for information about hire skis, bindings etc. but I suspect this only happens in rare cases. Ski insurance premiums are set a rate which is actuarially assessed on likelihood of an accident and possibly only a miniscule likelihood of someone else sharing the costs. Personal injury claims are a whole different ball game and in my view and this is my personal view except from where a third party careers into you or there is a clear dereliction of duty by a third party such as a lift attendant/company not performing properly one should take personal injuries on the chin. We know we are undertaking a pastime which has some inherent risk and we choose indeed we positively elect to do it and we hope that the worst never happens. Almost inevitably in a long skiing career of maybe 40+ years we will succumb to some sort of injury but that is a small price to pay for should be truly called the sport of kings! dp I think you overstate the collusion between insurers, as in car insurance and knock for knock type arrangements its swings and roundabouts and most insurers will take a claim on the chin, its what they are there for and we, the insureds, do not need to worry about it anyway. You pays your money and hopefully gets your claim paid, by whom? In the real world who cares.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| dp wrote: |
| If the shop does not have those figures, it leaves the insurer in a pickle. |
Why? Is it a legal requirement? What exact figures do they have to keep - where is it written in law what they have to do? Is it sufficient to say we set them to 7 based on the profile of the skier or do they have to record the full profile of the skier? I think unless we know the exact law, we are shooting in the dark.
And what happens if they have all that information. The binding could still have been badly maintained, faulty, set wrongly in other ways. Perhaps each binding should be tested before it goes out the shop - by a machine...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Layne wrote: |
| dp wrote: |
| If the shop does not have those figures, it leaves the insurer in a pickle. |
Why? Is it a legal requirement? What exact figures do they have to keep - where is it written in law what they have to do? Is it sufficient to say we set them to 7 based on the profile of the skier or do they have to record the full profile of the skier? I think unless we know the exact law, we are shooting in the dark.
. |
What @dp and @FFIRMIN makes sense to me regarding 'subrogation'. @Layne, it leaves them in a pickle as they are less likely to be able to go back to the other insurer and say we have proof those bindings were set properly, and thus more likely to agree a settlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Layne, I think @spyderjon already answered most of those questions above
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
subrogation - I had to look that up!
@clarky999, yes... sorry. You are right he did.
In which case there is no excuse for the rental shop not to have them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Layne, besides Clarky's point, like @Themasterpiece said it's also that if you cannot refute the claims of the skier's insurance company with reliable backup, then it is more likely that your insurer will have to reach a settlement.
You don't choose whether things are fought or not - your insurer will choose. If you can't provide your insurer with ammunition, then they won't do any shooting on your behalf. So if the skier's insurer says that they want to see evidence that you did your job properly, and you cannot provide such evidence - they'll claim that you didn't do your job properly and since you can't prove that you did, your insurer will have to settle on your behalf.
It really makes no difference whether it's written in law or not. A lot of normal practices in all industries are set by insurers' requirements not legal requirements. If your insurance company want it, it's a good idea to do it; even if you're not actually legally obliged to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dp, I think the hole though is that recording the profile and the chosen DIN setting is just a tick box exercise. It tells you nothing of any other adjustments made, the competence of the technician, etc. but I do understand that "it's the least they can do". Doing a full and proper workshop check of the binding post accident is never going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Layne wrote: |
| @dp, I think the hole though is that recording the profile and the chosen DIN setting is just a tick box exercise. It tells you nothing of any other adjustments made, the competence of the technician, etc. |
But they will also be asking those questions too. If they are suggesting that the skis or bindings contributed to the accident - they may want to know anything up to who mounted them in the first place, when they were last inspected for defects, who adjusted them for the customer, what data they used to do so, what their qualifications were, etc etc. As I said I do investigations for theatrical rigging and lifting and I will ask all of the equivalent questions and expect to see the answers logged. In the failure of a fly system I would want to see:
- Original design specification (to ensure it was compliant)
- Details of manufacturer (to ensure it was compliant and so that if necessary, their insurers can be contacted)
- When it was last inspected, who inspected it, what points they inspected, why they inspected it, and any observations of the inspection
- Details of any repair work that has ever been carried out on the fly system and why it was carried out
- Records of any and all accidents, near misses and/or malfunctions of the system in the last 5 years and what remedy was carried out
- Record of who was using the fly system at the time of this particular incident - and if they are a subcontractor, details of their insurer
- What training and qualifications that person has in using it
- What steps the theatre had taken to ensure that person has remained competent and current with legislation
- What steps the theatre had taken to allow that person to report defects and what system the theatre had for informing the person there are any defects
- And then finally - the actual load (weight) being used on the fly system that day and details of all the items that were hanging on it, and details of all loading calculations.
So on that basis, I would presume a ski insurance expert to want at least something like the following:
- Original design specification of the binding (to prove it is a legislatively compliant binding)
- Details of manufacturer (to ensure it was compliant and so that if necessary, their insurers can be contacted)
- When it was last inspected, who inspected it, what points they inspected, why they inspected it, and any observations of the inspection
- Details of any repair work that has ever been carried out on the binding and why it was carried out
- Records of any and all accidents, near misses and/or malfunctions of that or the same model of binding in the last 5 years and what remedy was carried out
- Record of who had set the bindings up to the rental customer for this particular incident - and if they are a subcontractor, details of their insurer
- What training and qualifications that person has in setting up those bindings
- What steps the rental shop had taken to ensure that person has remained competent and current with legislation
- What steps the rental shop had taken to allow that technician to report defects and what system the rental shop had for informing the technician there are any defects
- And then finally - the actual age/weight/ability of the skier that the bindings had been setup for, and the DIN settings which had been used.
So the DIN setting of bindings would be really the tip of the iceberg. BUT all the same it is information which feeds in to the other information that I would request, which helps me to build up a better picture of what and who and why.
If the theatre couldn't tell me the weights of the items on the fly system that day, I would say well if you cannot tell me the weights, how could you possibly tell me that the weight on the bar was within the design scope of the system? And they would say the same about bindings - if you cannot tell me the settings on the bindings, how can you possibly tell me that the settings were appropriate?
| Quote: |
| Doing a full and proper workshop check of the binding post accident is never going to happen. |
To say never is just factually wrong. The insurers will ask for as much information as they can get and if they want to test your bindings you'd be wise to let them crack on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, you could well be right, your knowledge and therefore opinion is clearly more valid than mine. I would have thought depth of investigation would be rare in the case of ski insurance claims but admit I have no direct knowledge of how the industry works - if that wasn't clear already 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Layne I think that would basically depend on whether you are talking about a fractured foot, with an x-ray and a plaster cast and some crutches that might rack up a thousand quids worth of medical bills (which the insurer probably gets a discount on anyway)... or somebody being completely paralysed with lifelong medical issues which could run into millions.
If scrutinising a claim is worth it for the theatres' insurers it'll be worth it for the ski insurers. The underwriters are the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
