 Poster: A snowHead
|
Not the usual "who's best?" question (well ok, not JUST that question, but if you can recommend anyone please do so)
For the last 20 odd years we've just got "couple" insurance. We've no reached that point in life where a different option in the "age" dropdown must be chosen, and it was suggested that separate policies may be required. If we were to go down this path, then I'm assuming it would mean two sets of claims in case anything should go awry, rather than someone saying "well just cos one of you has a broken leg it doesn't mean the other can't go so we won't be paying out" Is there anything we need to consider in this case?
And that brings me to part 2 - off piste insurance. We've got season passes for Sainte Foy this year, and it's the kind of place where dabbling off piste is reasonably simple. We've got the Carré Neige cover for immediate rescue, so would we NEED further off piste cover from our own insurance policy? I'm a little hesitant in case (hopefuly unlikely scenario alert) someone gets injured and rescued from off piste under Carré Neige, then the insurers say "we can't cover the homeward travel or further treatment in the UK because the accident happened off piste"
Can anyone shed light on either scenario? Any other points I should consider?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| nbt wrote: |
| We've no reached that point in life where a different option in the "age" dropdown must be chosen, and it was suggested that separate policies may be required. |
Who suggested it and why?
We have a family policy (4 people) - 6.5 years age difference between me and the wife, kids are now young adults. I have never thought about having to take out individual policies. I assumed the company adjusted the premium according to the make up of the group. And I assumed we were covered as if we were individuals. Being covered as a family is just a bit cheaper (they capture x number of clients in one hit) and easier administratively for us and the insurance company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
On part 2, this is what I hate about they way travel insurance is currently structured. So many cracks to fall down.
CN should cover everything you need including repatriation. So the travel insurance would be just used/needed for things like holiday cancellation or losing your baggage/passport. But as you point out, what about ongoing care. I mean that would be NHS right but I seem to recall some people get private physio via insurance.
Personally I try to make sure I have a good insurance policy and not pay for CN. But don't think there is a concrete answer and as you probably know there has been many threads discussing this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
Who suggested it and why?
|
when you reach the "senior citizen" age band, insurers tend to treat you as more susceptible to injury - I don't recall exactly which insurer / broker it was but when looking for insurance last year, at least one of them said "we won't cover you as a couple as you fall either side of the age grouping, you will need to take separate policies". I'm just trying to work out if this is widespread / common / very odd, ahead of sorting out the next 12 months of insurance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Personally I try to make sure I have a good insurance policy and not pay for CN.
|
the one time we did need insurance, I didn't have CN. Mrs NBT had to wait till I got back from running around so that I could pay the ambulance bill before they'd take her to the doctors. I got the money back, of course, less the excess - but the excess was more or less what CN has cost us this year, hence I've gone for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| nbt wrote: |
| Quote: |
Who suggested it and why?
|
when you reach the "senior citizen" age band, insurers tend to treat you as more susceptible to injury - I don't recall exactly which insurer / broker it was but when looking for insurance last year, at least one of them said "we won't cover you as a couple as you fall either side of the age grouping, you will need to take separate policies". I'm just trying to work out if this is widespread / common / very odd, ahead of sorting out the next 12 months of insurance |
If I look at my current insurer the only thing I can find is this:
https://www.lv.com/travel-insurance/age-restrictions-on-your-travel-insurance-policies
I don't think it means that you can't be on the same policy except when 80 can only do single trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| nbt wrote: |
| If we were to go down this path, then I'm assuming it would mean two sets of claims in case anything should go awry, rather than someone saying "well just cos one of you has a broken leg it doesn't mean the other can't go so we won't be paying out" Is there anything we need to consider in this case? |
LV policy document says file:///C:/Users/e1218918/Downloads/LV%20Travel%20DOI_2024.pdf page 18 talks about when you are covered when things happen to a travelling companion. I think you would be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very few insurance policies cover you for off piste without a guide. Some don't cover for off piste even with a guide.
I am nearly 77 and it is certainly a lot more expensive now to insure. Not sure how I'll get insured at 80. Seems like a bit of a cliff-edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Layne, you can't know that without knowing his insurer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Very few insurance policies cover you for off piste without a guide. Some don't cover for off piste even with a guide.
|
I didn't know that. I wasn't looking for off piste insurance but it came with the policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| holidayloverxx wrote: |
| @Layne, you can't know that without knowing his insurer |
I said "I think" based on my current (mainstream) insurer. I never said anything about knowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Layne, yeah, but you thinking that is meaningless. I could have been less lazy in my drafting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@holidayloverxx, story of my laugh 
Thanks for letting me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| snowball wrote: |
Very few insurance policies cover you for off piste without a guide. Some don't cover for off piste even with a guide.
I am nearly 77 and it is certainly a lot more expensive now to insure. Not sure how I'll get insured at 80. Seems like a bit of a cliff-edge. |
As I read BMC insurance, when i was skiing off piste, it did cover you off piste without a guide, even skiing solo. N, without paying for stuff I did not need. Now that was some years ago, and things may have changed, but maybe worth a look. In my day the insurance was modular, and I could meet my specific requirements closely. I don't think I ever claimed on it, but the wording gave me considerable assurance. The wording was clear, and I felt that the insurers understood what I was doing and would cover me for the activities I was doing. Not bargain basement, but it did seem to be quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
