 Poster: A snowHead
|
If you buy your ski insurance from www.snowcard.co.uk, this is for you:
The huge Belgian/Dutch banking and insurance group Fortis is in trouble this weekend. I believe they are the underwriters for Snowcard, which I've been buying for quite a few years (I've got two of their policies already for the coming season).
Likely rescuers are BNP and ING from France and the Netherlands respectively. Both would require Belgian state guarantees as part of any rescue deal. Neither of them wants the insurance business and would be looking to sell on to names such as Allianz, Generali or Axa.
I have no idea how these things work and who guarantees or protects what, but if you are about to buy a policy, check who the underwriter is. The Snowcard website has not yet mentioned this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Yup, it will affect me. And the SCGB, since Fortis is used by them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
achilles, me too (via SCGB). And here's me sailing across the channel next week. Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thanks for this. I was just starting the search for ski racing insurance for "the bogee" and seems a lot of them are underwritten by these guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
The BMC use fortis too, wonder what the implications will be, if any.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Just had a quick look at who the underwriter is for Direct Travel as I (and also loads of other Snowheads) have got a policy with them. It's AIG.
Wikipedia says this about AIG:-
On September 16, 2008, AIG suffered a liquidity crisis following the downgrade of its credit rating. The United States Federal Reserve loaned money to AIG at AIG's request, to prevent the company's collapse, in order for AIG meet its obligations to post additional collateral to trading partners. The Federal Reserve announced the creation of a credit facility of up to US$85 billion in exchange for warrants for a 79.9% equity stake and the right to suspend dividends to previously issued common and preferred stock. AIG announced the same day that its board accepted the terms of the Federal Reserve Bank's rescue package. This was the largest government bailout of a private company in U.S. history, though smaller than the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a week earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fortis is the largest private employer in Belgium and holds approaching 50% of the country's bank deposits. In the Netherlands it's the second largest financial group (presumably behind ING, who will face competition issues if they take over Fortis). The leader of the Belgian Christian Democrat party is saying that the government is ready to guarantee 100% of investor deposits (hope I've got enough zeros here, don't want to be the one who triggers a run by accident!). Other stories are mentioning nationalisation.
Understanding nothing at all of how insurance works I don't know whether this is comforting news or not for policy holders.
I rushed online to get my holiday cover sorted out when XL went bust. Is anywhere safe in a storm? Annoyingly, my holiday airline (Monarch) never looked anything less than perfectly solid and has positively benefited from XL's collapse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ianrusper, well I'm glad you posted it about Fortis because of course, we all knew about some airlines having trouble etc etc but I for one hadn't thought about the underwriters of travel insurance and what happens if they get into financial difficulties. I don't expect many others have done either. I suppose it means perhaps if other insurers/underwriters take over the risk on policies where it was a previous underwriter/insurer which has gone bust then it maybe means certain things won't be covered as comprehensively as they were before, or if they are then maybe it might come at an increased cost on renewal?
Could be another case of if someone offers "the only bus into town", well then they can charge what they like so to speak. I appreciate that analogy isn't quite the same as this situation as there will never be just one airline, just one travel insurer, but you can see what I mean if they're all dropping like flies and only the strongest come out the other side of all this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Unlikely to be an issue. Insurance companies are inherently profitable ( especially after AIG - watch those premiums rise!) and will be a separate legal entity from the troublesome bank. I wouldn't be worried.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to FSA regulation, your premium is protected all the way down the line to the underwriter. In theory claims get paid out but we live in unprecedented times!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
I understand you saying that the premiums will be protected due to FSA regulation but what about when it comes to renewal, surely there will be nothing to stop whoever then takes on the risk instead of Fortis and AIG to put the premiums up if they want on renewal?
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Sun 28-09-08 20:41; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
Thanks to FSA regulation, your premium is protected all the way down the line to the underwriter. In theory claims get paid out but we live in unprecedented times!
|
Hmmm. Still speaking as an innocent in these matters, I see the FSA as a regulatory and (potentially anyway) disciplinary body. I didn't know there was a fund to protect premiums and/or claims. Or maybe this is what reinsurance does, so maybe I'm geting excited about nothing. If another Katrina came along in the current post AIG/Fortis climate I dare say we would get all the answers we need quite quickly!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BMC, SnowCard & SCGB are almost all of the UK insurers that will cover off piste without a guide. Are there any non Fortis backed UK insurers for off piste without a guide?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
scottishskier, yes Direct Travel covers that I believe (I will just quickly check) and they are underwritten by AIG and they seem to have encountered difficulties also. This is what I mean about who will take on the risks on things like this that Fortis and AIG already cover and if whoever new insurer is prepared to cover off piste without a guide then will this mean a premium increase later on down the line? I know they will have to probably keep the premium quoted originally as discussed above but what happens when it's renewed I mean. I think probably it means cost increase if they are then covering stuff which they wouldn't normally and are only doing so because they've taken on an another insurer's policies.
I'm sure there will always be someone who is prepared to insure for off piste without a guide though so that's no worry.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sun 28-09-08 20:49; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Yes, just checked and Direct Travel do cover off piste without a guide, except for outside the boundaries of resorts in the US and Canada which is fair enough and a guide will be required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
| I understand you saying that the premiums will be protected due to FSA regulation but what about when it comes to renewal, surely there will be nothing to stop whoever then takes on the risk instead of Fortis and AIG to put the premiums up if they want on renewal? |
Actually, there is no such thing as a renewal. You take out a brand new policy each time and underwriters generally renegotiate rates with the reseller every year. The new rates will be based on the claims experience of the previous years so there is nothing at all to stop the new owner of the book of business from rehashing the offering, putting up rates, increasing excesses, dropping certain areas of cover etc etc. In the end, their general idea is to make money while remaining competetive and paying out claims. I suspect that all the consolidation that's bound to take place now will end up costing us all more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| ianrusper wrote: |
| Quote: |
Thanks to FSA regulation, your premium is protected all the way down the line to the underwriter. In theory claims get paid out but we live in unprecedented times!
|
Hmmm. Still speaking as an innocent in these matters, I see the FSA as a regulatory and (potentially anyway) disciplinary body. I didn't know there was a fund to protect premiums and/or claims. Or maybe this is what reinsurance does, so maybe I'm geting excited about nothing. If another Katrina came along in the current post AIG/Fortis climate I dare say we would get all the answers we need quite quickly! |
There's no fund like there is with package holidays. FSA just makes sure that the premium you have paid finds its way into the underwriters pot. So, for example, Fortis customers' premiums should be held in client accounts until paid over to underwiters. As long as underwriters receive those premiums they pay out as usual, taking the losses on the chin and making up those losses in the good years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| VolklAttivaS5 wrote: |
| Yes, just checked and Direct Travel do cover off piste without a guide, except for outside the boundaries of resorts in the US and Canada which is fair enough and a guide will be required. |
Not sure why this is different from off-piste off the back of mountains in Europe and far from the pistes. Why do you feel it is different?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
snowball, I think it's the way that Europe and the US treat things differently, as I understand things in Europe if you are outside the piste markers then you are off piste( it makes no legal difference if that's a meter outside or 5km outside), however in the US you could be off piste within the resort boundairies or off piste outside those boundaries I suspect this is why US resorts tend to give ski areas in terms of acres covered whereas in Europe we tend to get km of piste
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
snowball, Difference is that in the USA you can be arrested for nipping over the ski area boundary fence. The mere hint of criminal proceedings and the insurance co will wash their hands of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
The insurance arm is totally seperate from the banking side of things, S&P and AM Best ratings are static at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller,
| Quote: |
The new rates will be based on the claims experience of the previous years so there is nothing at all to stop the new owner of the book of business from rehashing the offering, putting up rates, increasing excesses, dropping certain areas of cover etc etc. In the end, their general idea is to make money while remaining competetive and paying out claims. I suspect that all the consolidation that's bound to take place now will end up costing us all more.
|
That's what I thought. I mean renewal as in when you come to renew your policy and take out a new policy with either the same insurer or a different one. I think it will end up costing us all more regardless as you say.
snowball,
| Quote: |
Not sure why this is different from off-piste off the back of mountains in Europe and far from the pistes. Why do you feel it is different?
|
I thought it was because, within the resort boundary of a US or Canadian resort, everything is avalanche controlled and patrolled whether the runs are actually pisted or not?
So the resort boundary would be set and if you go outside of this then DT would not cover you unless you are with a locally qualified guide whereas off piste in Europe is everything outside of the piste markers whether it be 1 metre outside or 1 mile and is not avalanche controlled or officially patrolled? Is this not right compared to your understanding of it then?
If not then what is the difference and why would they (DT) stipulate a guide would be needed to be covered for skiing outside of the resort boundary on US and Canadian resorts? I'm sure it has got something to do with the inbounds area (US & Canada) being patrolled and made safe which isn't the case in Europe (apparently) but I can't remember exactly what now. Do you know exactly the difference?
I'm sure someone will be along soon to explain exactly what the difference but I thought it was something to do with that?
I think lots of Snowheads have cover with Direct Travel because they cover any off piste without a guide in Europe, so whether you are just skiing in and out of the piste markers to the side of the piste or much further afield then one way or another you should be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowball, ah cross over of posts there. I see D G Orf and Bode Swiller have answered about it so it seems I was thinking the right thing above about why it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Fortis have been bailed out by the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg governments, so there shouldn't be any immediate issue with the ongoing provision of this cover.
That said, it's all change every other day in the wacky world of banking at the moment, so who knows what the situation will be in a few days time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To all. Out of interest then, are there any insurance companies that do cover off piste skiing outside of the boundaries of US and Canadian resorts without a guide bearing in mind that it is illegal to do so in some US and Canadian resorts, as Bode Swiller has mentioned earlier?
I've had a look through the SCGB policy doc online and although they say off piste is covered with or without a guide, it doesn't mention anything about outside of the boundary/fenced area of resorts in the US and Canada, not as far as I can see anyway.
Snowcard say this re off piste skiing on their policies
Is off piste skiing covered?
We do not exclude off piste skiing or boarding, whether with a guide or not. If you occasionally wander off piste or if you are skiing on marked resort off piste runs, you need not worry. The only time you may not be covered is if an area has been closed by the local authorities because of avalanche danger and you choose to ignore the restrictions. If you go back country ski touring away from marked resort runs and you use skins, crampons & ropes you must use Activity Level 4 for single trips. If you have annual activcard.sports at Activity Level 2 or above, you are automatically covered for Snowcard wintersports at level 4. Off piste, ensure you have the skill and awareness to deal with the conditions and carry avalanche transceivers and rescue equipment as necessary.
They say no worries if skiing on marked resort off piste runs so one would assume that outside of a US/Canada resort boundary would constitute a "non resort off piste run" and therefore might not be covered? Or is it?
Also checked the BMC policy and no mention what the definition of off piste skiing is on there either with regards to US/Canada.
Is it reasonable to assume that because the insurers I've mentioned above don't mention it as an exclusion, then if you do have an accident outside of the resort boundary and you haven't employed a guide then you are covered? Or not? At least the Direct Travel policy makes it clear on the home page and in the policy doc that you must have a guide for outside of the resort boundary for US and Canada so it's either one or t'other.
Dogtag say this about it, but again they don't mention the difference between US/Canada and Europe (if they do stipulate there is one)
Q. Do you cover Off Piste Skiing and what is the definition of Off Piste?
A.Off-piste is defined as venturing over ungroomed and unmarked slopes but within the ski area or resort boundary, i.e the area covered by ski patrollers or managed by the resort. Most resorts designate off-piste areas but if you are uncertain about a particular area, do not go there.
Some people understand off piste (or backcountry) skiing or boarding to mean 'going out of bounds', i.e. outwith the resort. If you are going out of bounds or outwith marked areas of the resort, you must only do so with a fully qualified local guide. Even some areas within a resort may be considered out of bounds because they are hazardous. In some parts of North America, going out of bounds contravenes local law and you may face arrest.
I know this is a bit off topic from the OP but it has got me wondering about it. I know the majority of people won't be intending on going outside of the resort boundaries i.e the fenced area with the gates in the US/Canada anyway including myself-I'm going to Fernie next Feb and I am very unlikely to hop over the fence as there is plenty to keep me occupied inside the fence. But it is good to know for sure what's what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, Why don't you just email Snowcard and ask? I have found them really helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
VolklAttivaS5, If you want to use Snowcard be aware that if you use skins, you will need Level 4 cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nordicfan, I just wondered because I already have an annual policy with Direct Travel, and since the subject came up re resort boundaries I wondered if they were the exception with insisting on a guide outside of boundary and if so I would consider moving insurer when it comes round to renewal time. I don't think they are so it's fine.
snowbunny, yes I saw that, thanks. It doesn't matter anyway because Direct Travel cover it all anyway on my policy (apart from the outside US resort boundary without a guide bit as discussed above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
