 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
had the surrounding mountains been avalanche controlled sucessfully, wouldn't have been an issue.
|
I can't imagine anybody reasonable deciding that foresight, care etc could have controlled avalanche risk across entire swathes of mountain with 5/6 metres of snow on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
1. OP's conditions of insurance are here (the relevant part). http://www.snowcard.co.uk/trip-cancellation.php#.URo9dKUz0oM
They make it clear that catastrophe cover is for
| Quote: |
Catastrophy cover; up to £500
If during the period of insurance you are prevented from using your accommodation because of fire, flood, earthquake, you will be covered for the reasonable extra cost of accommodation and travel, to move to other accommodation. |
OP rang them up, and presumably the telephone operator read this, and knew that 'avalanche risk' was not specifically covered; however OP had rung them up, and as a mark of good customer service the operator spent some time talking to colleagues to see whether in fact OP WAS covered. That they spent 20 minutes investigating something that was pretty 'obvious' to me looks like good customer service, not bad. From a recent experience of my own, the insurance company did their best to see whether they could in fact cover the costs despite the circumstances being unclear.
2. If, in fact, OP had been able to claim under the catastrophe section of his policy, he would very possibly have been no better off. As mentioned, I am not a lawyer but
| Quote: |
EXCLUSIONS FOR CATASTROPHE COVER
1. You are not covered for the following:
a. Costs which may be refunded from someone or somewhere else; |
It is my suspicion that under English law (and we don't know whether the contract is under French or English law), the contract has been deemed to be frustrated – i.e. the operator is no longer able to provide, for reasons outside his control, the services that he has contracted to provide to the customer. Under such circumstances the operator is required to reimburse the customer. Therefore OP’s insurance would still not cover him as he would be required to reclaim the cost from Garbure, not his insurance company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frustration_in_English_law
OP’s other half may also discover that their insurance will not in fact pay if the costs can, in fact, be recovered from a third party (and I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity to argue with the company as they've clearly said it will be possible). But see page 11 Part Two, Catastrophe Cover, Exclusions http://www.natwest.com/content/personal/adgold/pdfs/AdGold_travel_insurance_policy.pdf for an equivalent clause about reclaiming costs from elsewhere.
We have, further, learned that the operator is in parlous financial state. It is possible that OP will be joining the list of unsecured creditors in order to reclaim the costs from a bankrupt ski company and that would complicate the insurance issue yet further.
Now, you may think this is patronising, but I think it’s realistic. There's no point in Garbure asking his nice clients to claim off their insurance rather than him if the cost is just going to be passed onto Garbure with the insurance company's additional administration costs on top, is there? Who is that helping? IMO Garbure needs some good legal advice, and it would be sooner rather than later if it were me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| James the Last wrote: |
<snip>
It is my suspicion that under English law (and we don't know whether the contract is under French or English law), the contract has been deemed to be frustrated – i.e. the operator is no longer able to provide, for reasons outside his control, the services that he has contracted to provide to the customer.
|
I don't think that is correct.
He is able to provide the service, the customers are (for reasons outside their control) unable to access it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
You may very well be right. But he has also been evacuated, so is unable to provide the service? And I guess on whether the comission de securite de Bareges has the authority to use force to evacuate anybody who refuses to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
James the Last, its an interesting point that if instead of snow it had been rain that caused the enforced move of accommodation they might well have been covered, given that this was a specific snow sports insurance you would have thought that reasonably in the middle of winter snow might have been included ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
James the Last, I was going to write a response but TBH I am enjoying a beer after some of the best skiing ever! The faceshots were awesome. Apologies, I have neither the time or energy for you. I pitty you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elston, enjoy 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
As a member of the community of Snowheads I too feel a duty towards them, Freddie Paellahead, hence my post. I really hope they are being well advised but doubt it. To let them continue to assume that their guests can be recommended to claim off their own insurance with no risk whatsoever of any impact on Garbure's business would be doing them a disservice.
Equally, I am sure that if you have a pension fund or other investments that include insurance company shares you will agree that insurance companies should not have to cover costs that are the responsibility of another.
D G Orf, it's cheap insurance. It can be reasonably assumed to cover only the bare minimum... People buy insurance with the wrong attitude (it's what keeps insurance companies in business). I am happy to buy cheap ski insurance because I am happy to cover myself the remote risk of the relatively small cost of having to pay for accommodation in circumstances such as these. However, I'm not happy to cover the remote risk of the large cost of a helicopter evacuation and ensuing medical costs which IS covered by cheap ski insurance.
If I were unprepared to cover the limited costs of accommodation under such circumstances then I should buy more expensive insurance that would cover more eventualities.
In reality, all too often those who buy the cheaper, less adequate insurance, are those who cannot afford to cover the risks themselves; and those who buy the more expensive insurance are those with more money and therefore for whom it makes more sense to self insure.
Elston, delighted you had an awesome day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
James the Last, what makes you consider it to be cheap insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
James the Last, My snowcard insurance, which doesn't cover cancellation, cost around £170 IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
s know and are friends with Rob and Emma and are naturally feeling protective. Although your views are interesting, I don't think that they are helpful at what must be a very fraught time.