The Insurance Minefield ~ Chapter 2

As another post has been made, this time outlining what Mondial-Assistance Underwriters have to say regarding off piste Ski Insurance. With the permission of the original poster here is what was written about the policies they Underwrite in the UK. Very interesting to read and if you ski with SCGB Leaders or have there insurance, worth noting what it says here.


Mondial Assistance:

The following applies to all travel Insurance policies that Mondial underwrite in the UK and Republic of Ireland.

From an underwriting perspective we need to make a distinction between the type of off piste skiing/boarding and in our experience these fall into two main categories:

Item 1) Those who are beginners or relatively inexperienced who consider "off piste" to be simply going slightly off the groomed run either by accident or as a small part of a lesson with an instructor.

Item 2) Those who are experienced and choose to ski predominantly or deliberately off piste.

For the first category, we would need to give some leeway on our requirements due to the customers inexperience or circumstances e.g. with an instructor.

For the second category we would expect that the person is experienced enough to understand the potential dangers, general guidance and local advice/laws/regulations (for the particular area/country) for off piste skiing.

General off piste guidance (which we would expect insurance customer to observe) are as follows:

· Do not ski/board alone
· Always ski with a guide/instructor unless you are very familiar with the resort/area
· As a minimum, a shovel, probe and transceiver should be carried
· Check local weather forecasts and avalanche warnings every day
. Do not ignore any warning signs or local advice
· Do not ski if the avalanche warning is 4 or 5

Our policies contain the following additional conditions and exclusions that are relevant (please note the actual phrasing in different policies may vary)

· You should take reasonable care to protect yourself …….. against accident, injury …………
· You are not covered for claims relating to your suicide, self-injury or deliberately putting yourself at risk (unless you were trying to save another person's life)
· You are not covered if you do not follow any suggestions or recommendations of ………….. or other official authority.

Mondial are currently in the process of conducting our annual policy wording review and I will ensure that our current wording regarding off piste is updated.
...............................................................................

Further to this: all points under item 2 would apply if you are deliberately skiing off-piste with a Ski Club Great Britain instructor/guide (leader).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not added or changed anything on this post. Read it for yourself and make your own mind up.
_________________

:shock: Am I imagining it or does this make a lot more sense than any of the other responses?

I'm seeing that they are preferring to limit their liability by claiming off Instructors or Guides insurances in the event of an accident.

At what point does a person become experienced at off piste? (Enough to satisfy an Insurer?)

Always ski with a guide/instructor unless you are very familiar with the resort/area

IMHO you would need to have lived in a resort year on year to be very familiar with the resort/area. I'm wondering if there is any cover if not with Instructor/Guide.

Hmmmm? :?

What I read is that they are at least trying. It is tempting to test the wording by offering sets of circumstances. So I'm going to! )
In relation to item 1 ~ what if you are experienced, but only go slightly off-piste?
And item 2 ~ In Lech, last year, I lead a group, (only in the sense that I went first, I was the most experienced, and that they blindly trusted and followed me), where we joined the zigs to the zags, and then the zags to the zigs ~ all the way down a red run. The only time we were on the run was to cross the piste. 95% was off piste. We were in full sight of the whole valley, and easily reachable by the first aid ackier. Risk wise, I might suggest we were safer than being on-piste.
I would be wary of skiing down Av Risk level 3, where the slope was south-facing ~ not an aspect that I have seen mentioned.
I am concrned that the insurance companies hook up so much on avalanches. My experiences of dead bodies in my local resort, have been 2 dead on piste, both heart attacks, and 3 dead off-piste, all impact fatalities. (with trees)

Dave Mac, as the most experienced person in your crowd, you would likely have been held liable for the actions of your friends, especially as you took decisions and led from the front AIUI.

The Underwriter mentioned above is suggesting that we be experienced off piste, and know a particular resort very well, we are not talking about pistes here. Would you have met that criteria in Lech?

I differ in my view about the safety aspect of a south facing slope in L3. I think a north facing slope would be much more risky because the layers of snow will be less bonded without the sun melting the top layers regularly (notwithstanding any other local issues like warm ground).

I believe that Underwriters are focusing on avalanches because of the increased costs of search and rescue in those circumstances. From your example, tree impact, straightforward and inexpensive recovery. On piste heart attacks, again inexpensive when compared to helicopters, dog teams, lines of searchers with probes....

Of course my views are those of an amateur "muggles" as J2skiers were recently labelled, and should be viewed as such.

Hi Bandit and others, pleased you found what I posted about Mondial interesting. I also think they are trying to be clearer. Not perfect but better. Regarding off piste and Heli's. You need to be sure you are covered as they almost always use one as moving someone injured in a sledge off piste any distance as I saw last season is very difficult even for the best pisteurs.

North or south facing slopes, they both have there risks. As to knowing a place well. That is a very hard one to answer. I would be interested to hear what others think of this wording. Makes for a good debate if nothing else.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of overall claims are for off piste skiing, in terms of numbers, and cost. Although the cost involved in avalanche incidents may be high, efforts to reduce insurance payouts may be better directed toward on piste safety, where the majority of accidents happen.

There is evidence in the US that insurance industry consultants have been devising ways to reduce claim amounts, and set examples to dissuade people from making claims. The most effective way to do this, is to fight the big claims in court with huge resources made available. These cases mostly involved property damage claims, and only came to light when internal company/consultancy documents were accidentally sent to a claimants lawyer. Given the international ties of that industry, there could be a similar thing going on here.

Trencher wrote:

There is evidence in the US that insurance industry consultants have been devising ways to reduce claim amounts, and set examples to dissuade people from making claims. The most effective way to do this, is to fight the big claims in court with huge resources made available. These cases mostly involved property damage claims, and only came to light when internal company/consultancy documents were accidentally sent to a claimants lawyer. Given the international ties of that industry, there could be a similar thing going on here.

In the UK, it's common practice for Insurers to use Claims Handling Agencies to deal with the processing aspects.
I have been through the blender with one of the agencies when making a claim for costs after skiing injury.
I was left with the impression that their staff are incentivised to reduce the claim. I was repeatedly stonewalled.

My costs were met fully by the Insurer when I appealed directly to them about the behaviour of their appointed agent.

I imagine that most UK policy holders, faced with large costs after a claim is refused, would have very little money to bring their Insurer to court. We have the Financial Ombudsman, who are charged with ensuring fair practice, and AFAIK this is funded by the Insurance industry. I have taken an Insurance complaint to the Ombudsman, I won my costs incurred, plus damages.