 Poster: A snowHead
|
Has anyone else seen this article? http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1219734.ece
"The families of two British snowboarders killed in an avalanche in the French Alps have expressed their anger at being chased by debt collectors over a £20,000 bill for the failed rescue attempt.... although off-piste skiing was included in his insurance, CNA refused to pay for the rescue attempts because it was claimed the two men ignored danger signs"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
"The two friends were experienced snowboarders and had gone off piste during their time off, despite weather reports forecasting a Factor Three risk of an avalanche which means "considerable" on a scale of one to five."
You can see where the insurance company is coming from as the snowboarders actions could be said to be a bit reckless, although where do you draw the line - most off piste has some risk, the "exposure to danger which is reasonably foreseeable" clause could arguably apply anywhere off piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Difficult one, three is genrally considered to be skiable conditions if you are experienced much like going sailing in a force 8, there's a risk but if you know what you are doing you might consider it an acceptable one.
On the other hand if they went past "do not cross" ropes or similar signs it could be argued that they were reckless.
A small-print clause in the men's insurance policiesstated they were not covered for "exposure to danger which is reasonably foreseeable" Now I hate clauses like that because let's face it, it's reasonably foreseabler that sooner or later if you take part in snowsports you will be in an accident, even if it's not your fault
e.g skiing on a slope where there are lots of people of different abbilities, it is reasonbly foreseable that some of these people will fall over or colide with other skiers due to their lack of experience, therefore the insurers could argue that they don't have to pay
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Does anyone know what would happen in a case like this if they had had Carte Neige insurance? What a nightmare for these bereaved families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
At the very least the families should get the poor chaps' insurance premiums back as the policy was clearly not fit for purpose
In any case "it was claimed they ignored danger signs". Firstly do they mean signposts with "danger" on them? Or indications from the conditions of danger? Isn't there any burden of proof? Surely if there is reasonable doubt about the invalidation of the policy it should be deemed valid and pay out since the company has accepted the premiums that were paid in good faith?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I would consider 3 a reasonable risk, but would ask before going, where was less likely to be dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what is evident in the papers (so who knows who accurate/complete/correct it is?) it does seem to be as though the insurers are using the foreseeable risk clause as a catch all get out of jail free card. From the public information, I think it's dreadful.
The point of insurance being to cover against risks. If there was no risk you wouldn't need insurance now would you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And if it has been excluded purely on the basis of it being level 3, then that also excludes most off-piste too, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Would there be some point on the avalanche scale though where on-piste would be covered but off-piste not covered?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Difficult to comment on whether the insurance co. should pay out without seeing the policy, and difficult to criticise the insurance co. without knowing what the unfortunate victims thought/were told they buying. They could have bought the wrong policy for what they were going to do. The 'reasonably foreseeable' get out seems pretty feeble, but these press reports are usually incomplete and/or inaccurate.
Hard to see how their families could be liable to anyone, although perhaps their estates could (but I'd be surprised).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
richmond, different laws basically, in the UK relatives cannot be held responsible for debts, in France apparently they can
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
D G Orf, Thats correct. I know of relatives of someone who committed suicide by jumping in front of a train in France. Not only were they charged for removal of the body, but also for repair to train and delays caused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In an earlier thread on this awful subject, the suggestion was that these two guys were a very long way from any piste, which brings into focus a new twist, there is off piste and a long way off piste in the insurance co's assesment. If this is the case the only conclusion can be that we should ski with an appointed risk assesor to allow us to be adequately insured
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
IIRC these were 2 experienced seasonnaires who worked for a tour op. My brother was there at the time (last week of the season) and his view was conditions were a bit sketchy - large snowfall, rapid warming but that doesn't mean they hadn't prepared properly and taken sensible decisions.
I would expect their insurance was through their employer and so might be less comprehensive than a customised policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
It does appear very unfair, but insurance companies will do anything to avoid paying. Honesty is definitely not the best policy when dealing with insurance claims!
What if the families refuse to pay as they are in England and not France?
I would assume the French courts wouldn't have jurisdiction and I am sure they can't extradite on civil cases (debt is a civil matter not criminal unless it is tax or TV "tax" licence fee).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
davidb, TV Tax? - is that like paying 17.5% to watch Eddy Izzard ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Odin, Tax as in if you don't pay it you get fined and eventually go to prison.
A couple of years ago I got a demand to pay the licence so went to the post office and paid it not knowing that my parents paid it by direct debit. The following year I was about to renew it when I spoke to my parents who said they paid it by DD. So I contacted the licencing people who happily informed me that for the previous 2 years 2 licences had been purchased for the same house (I believe they automatically send out reminder without even checking). So they kindly sent me a form to reclaim the extra license fee, which contained one question regarding why are you claiming back the licence fee. I was tempted to write because you because you committed fraud and I demand to speak to Nicky Campbell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
davidb,
| Quote: |
Tax as in if you don't pay it you get fined and eventually go to prison
|
Only if they catch you ! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| D G Orf wrote: |
| richmond, different laws basically, in the UK relatives cannot be held responsible for debts, in France apparently they can |
Good job the rels live in England, then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It's awefully sad for the relatives whichever way you look at it, but as a mountain resident, I can see that someone has to pay. Mountain rescues aren't cheap - helicopters cost a fortune to run, and don't forget that the guys in mountain rescue risk their lives to try to rescue people. this all costs money. Resorts are not a bottomless pit, and neither are lift companies (although it's unlikely to have been them). If the insurance won't pay, and no-one else either then it will be reflected either in your lift pass cost or in our council tax cost. that's not fair either! We are supposing, at this point that the 2 guys killed were NOT behaving irresponsibly, and that the insurance company are being basically dishonest (the second is a reasonable assumption). However, just because they were experienced and saisonnaires does not mean they didn't take an unnacceptable risk.
I don't know about now, but a few years ago you had to lodge the rescue money with the mountain rescue BEFORE you climbed the north face of the Eiger, otherwise they wouldn't come to get you. Seriously, I think that's fair. Many many local guides had been killed attempting rescues and many climbers had slunk off to their own countries without paying for their rescue. Not quite the same thing but .....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
easiski, but how is it fair that the relatives who did not sanction the actions be left to foot the bill?
The people who died were distinct legal entities from the people that are being asked to pay. If that really is the law in France then it's [coarse language] ridiculous. What if the deceased were estranged from their families, would they still have to pay then?
I'm getting rather worried that my parents (who are at the chalet now) will kill themselves in a way that incurs massive expenditure for someone and I'll be left to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, if the guys weren't adequately insured and they were not asked to leave a deposit with the rescue services, it's hard to see who should pay if not the local community, who will no doubt pass it on to other mountain users through ski passes. This seems to be the least unfair option - certainly fairer than expecting the families (it's nothing to do with them) or the insurance co. (assuming that they are correct in saying that the activity was not covered) to pay. Don't forget that paid out insurance claims (whether or not the policy covered the activity) put up the premiums for everyone else, which isn't fair either.
If the insurance co. should pay, then they should pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Free Mountain Rescue Service and a free Lifeboat service, these are two of the very few things that are better about Britain than France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
Peter S, mountain rescue's going private. Don't know how much longer it will be free
|
|
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
brian
brian
Guest
|
|
|
|
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.
|
I thought the rescue service in France was free once you were outside the resort's boundaries?
I was once told that in deciding whether a mountain guide had acted reasonably in an avalanche accident, Swiss courts would use Werner Munther's "reduction" technique. I wonder whether the insurance company has made any attempt to apply something like this or is just asserting that the risk was not reasonable and then refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary.
And you do wonder what is "reasonable" in these circumstances. These guys weren't professional, so how accurate an assessment of the risk can they be expected to make? Surely the policy must assume a lower level of knowledge and cover situations where an inaccurate (or no) assessment of risk was made
Edit: level 3 avalanche risk on a steep (40-45degrees I believe) north facing slope is likely to get a pretty high risk rating under the reduction method
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its worth bearing in mind that until the mid-90s the Avalanche 1-5 scale had Category 3 - Moderate Risk. Cat 2 - Low Risk. Cat 1 - Very Low. The lower 3 were re-named I guess to drive home the message that avalanches can happen below 4 and 5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
richmond, I'm sorry, but I fail to see why (if this happened here), I should pay for the actions of a couple of ?idiots. Here, for instance, if it was the pisteurs who made the attempted rescue, that would be the lift company's responsibility and would be eventually passed on through your lift passes (which most people moan about the cost of). If it was Mountain Rescue (which is a separate entity) then the local community would end up paying. there's a huge difference. I don't know how it works at Tignes, but I'm pretty sure that the lift company is not run by the commune there. (Damn it - PG would know)!
Arno, If asny person (not talking about this particular case) made no assessment of risk before going off piste then they deserve what they get, and I really can't see why any insurance company (mush as I dislike them) should have to pay.
ben wright, Clearly as the family and extended family is alive and well in France, this isn't considered particularly odd at all. You must be well aware of this, as you also live here. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Please make allowances for my lack of knowledge of how mountain rescue is funded, but can we draw a parallel here with sea searches and rescues around the coast of the UK?
The RNLI is operated by highly skilled volunteers risking their lives at every launch without question of cost or ability of those in peril to pay.
Loosing a relative in this way must be teribble enough without all these added problems after he event.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
how is it fair that the relatives who did not sanction the actions be left to foot the bill?
|
Presumably the assumption is that payment would be made form the deceased's estate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Lizzard, but that's the whole problem. IN France, if the deceased's estate isn't sufficient, you can pursue the immediate family - in this case up the ladder to the parents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 another tack, I think the Life boat and mountain rescue sevices here are rated very highly and are happy to do the job for free. The RAF see it as valuable training etc so why do we need to change a tried and tested, and and enviable, service.
I put it done to a penny pinching government who can't control their costs... Grrrrrrrr
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
boredsurfin, The mountain rescue here is also staffed by volunteers AFAIK, but whereas in the UK the coastguard and the RAF for mountain rescue are (I think) funded by the government, I'm not so sure in mountain regions of France. Perhaps someone else knows?
I do think it's sad that the families have been asked to pay, and clearly this adds to their suffering, but the costs of a mountain/avalanche rescue must be huge. Here the costs of evacuation from the mountain in case of injury are written up everywhere. It's around €6,000 from the glacier area. that's just for the pisteurs taking you to the helicopter and the helicopter and ambulance taking you to the doctor.... With the number of people who "reneg" on their payments, no wonder the lift companies and pisteurs are getting more and more draconian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| easiski wrote: |
| Here the costs of evacuation from the mountain in case of injury are written up everywhere. It's around €6,000 from the glacier area. that's just for the pisteurs taking you to the helicopter and the helicopter and ambulance taking you to the doctor.... |
Many resorts in the Isère and Maurienne have a nice little thing going. (and maybe elsewhere but my source is a senior offical in the mountain rescue for this region). Often the helicopter that takes you from the ski resort to the hospital (usually the CHU Grenoble or Briançon) is a red and yellow EC145 belonging to the Civil Rescue services based near Grenoble or the Red civil rescue helicopter based at l'alpe d'Huez or one of the blue Alouette 3s belonging to the PGHM. To be honest I have never seen a civilian helicopter land at either hospital and I wonder whether the pilots are qualified for such a landing in a difficult, built up urban area?
If any of these helicopters are used there is no charge made by the state rescue services to the resort. Ditto for the red ambulances belonging to the fire brigade. Only if the community has to ask one of the civilian helicopters to intervene or uses a private ambulance (frequently the case in resort because there is an agreement between the commune and one or more private operators, possibly for sound logistical reasons) is there a charge made to the resort.
However many resorts will still charge you the cost of an ambulance or helicopter evacuation.
The PGHM and Civil Security helicopters are funded by taxpayers which will include the many millions of tourists who visit France every year. In the Savoie around 20% of jobs are directly related to tourism, especially skiing.
Note, in the case people are discussing above a civilian helicopter firm appears to have been used, probably to ferry dog handlers and pisteurs to the scene as it was a very extensive rescue site. AFAIKS there is no charge being made for the CRS helicopter from Bourg St Maurice or any of the many police involved in the rescue effort. You can image that the cost of a rescue such as this would have run into many tens of thousans of Euros picked up by the tax payer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
davidof, thanks for the clarification. Here we have red and white helicopters which are stationed (one at least) permanently at Les Cretes and are used to ferry peeps to the town. In busy periods we have two working more or less non-stop, but to be honest I haven't noticed whether the second is all red, or red and white like the main one. If it's a serious injury (requiring immediate hospitalisation) they fly the person directly to Grenoble. Normally they just take you to the town and you're transferred by ambulance to the hospital (this is what happened to me). Serious injuries are usually back or neck injuries and also require a doctor to come up onto the mountain before they move the injured person. This can sometimes mean a lengthy wait, and the pisteurs are not allowed to administer pain medication.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| easiski wrote: |
| davidof, thanks for the clarification. Here we have red and white helicopters which are stationed (one at least) permanently at Les Cretes |
Yes they are private helicopters (the red and white markings suggest an SAF contract) and the town will pay for them. Obviously there is an ongoing cost of just having the helicopters available but they are used for more than piste rescue, for example lift maintenance, avalanche control work etc.
The Civil Security and PGHM also make frequent rescue missions to LdA. I have no idea what LdAs position is for charging for those missions but know that many resorts in the region do charge. As I said I have never seen a private helicopter at Grenoble hospital whereas you will see the state rescue services running almost non-stop trips during the season.
Here is a spotter's guide:-
You will incur a charge where whoever is in charge of rescue decides to use a private helicopter or piste patrollers... obviously for simple missions within a ski domain this will normally be the resort's own personnel. If your accident occurs outside a ski domain these charges will be be picked up (in most cases) by the commune and will then be passed on to the department's fire service budget.
Let me give a few examples.
1. You sprain your knee on the Snowheads wall at Les 2 Alpes. A couple of piste patrollers take you from the wall to the nearest cable car and you are sent to resort. A private ambulance then takes you to the town's doctors. You will pay for medical treatment that is not covered by the E111 and the rescue.
2. You are avalanched on the Pied Moutet. The piste patrol is on the scene, does a probe line search and digs you out but in a state of cardiac arrest. By this time the PGHM helicopter has arrived from Briancon with a doctor. He restarts your heart and gets you stabilized. Because of the gravity of your injuries they decide to fly you to Grenoble and have already asked the EC145 from the civil security to come to the scene due to its ability to fly in poor weather and its speed. You are charged for the piste patrol's time and for medical treatment not covered by your E111 (Health Passport) but you are not charged (in theory) for either the PGHM or the civil security helicopter ride.
3. You ski off the back of les Deux Alpes outside of the ski domain. You fall over cliffs. The les Deux Alpes helicopter drops a doctor from the town to give you emergency treatment but cannot rescue you due to your position and asks the EC145 to intervene with its specialist crew of high mountain guides and long 90 meter whinch. You are taken to directly to hospital in Grenoble. The EC145 trip and guides are free but les Deux Alpes wants paying for their helicopter and doctor. Ahh, because you were outside of the ski domain they have no right to ask you for payment (they will probably try it on because it is quicker and easier) and instead pass the bill onto the department's rescue budget.
Obviously I'm only talking about France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, having seen a 'stack' of 3 helicopters waiting to land on the roof of Moutier hospital do the same colour schemes of the choppers apply in the Savoie?
As a by the by, our British Army helicopter pilots train for the high mountain/altitude certificates in Canada as there are no mountain ranges high enough in the UK. Often, in the past, taking Puma's for the parachutist's to jump out of as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Very informative and interesting, davidof. Thanks.
As you've suggested, this is a highly complex area, full of contigencies and potential for billing (or uncertainty over billing).
I took my daughter to a public hospital in Berlin, presented E111 documentation, and received a complex invoice by post on return to London. We were never warned that the hospital might charge at the time of treatment. The treatment was for a run-of-the-mill ear infection.
The essence of this story is that people want full insurance cover for the activities they're pursuing. The insurance companies want reasonable protection from people who induce huge claims because of reckless behaviour (which shouldn't be taken to refer to the incident involved in this thread).
I think The Independent's article is really interesting, and suggests that we need a thorough look at small print in the policies concerned. We could start with a study of the specific text of the CNA policy that led to all this strife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
davidof, having seen a 'stack' of 3 helicopters waiting to land on the roof of Moutier hospital do the same colour schemes of the choppers apply in the Savoie?
|
There is red-and-white helicopter (AS350 B2?) belonging to the SAF (private) stationed at Courchevel altiport under contract to the Savoie department for rescue work.. Elsewhere there are some red and green private helicopters from Blugeon based at Bourg St Maurice but these seem only to be used for logistical work.
There is also the red and yellow or all red Civil Security helicopter based at Annecy and Courchevel (during the summer and winter season) and the PGHM at Bourg St Maurice also have access to a helicopter ((blue Alouette 3 [tbc] possibly shared with the CRS in Albertville?.
Unfortunately the number of actors involved in French mountain rescue make it a bit confusing.
I don't know a great deal about helicopters and these pictures are just from my files taken more or less incidentally. Corrections and clarifications welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
