The Insurance Minefield ~ Chapter 2

Bandit, based on what you have said, it should be possible to take on the Insurance company if they did not pay up, but it does sound like you had a lot of hassle.

I hope when they have finished their policy wording review they will come up with something a little clearer and easier to understand what you are and are not covered for, which is what prompted my friends to ask the questions in the first place.

Here is an interesting point that has come up regarding Carte Neige season cover and repatriation.

Question: Will it cover you for repatriation if you are in a resort for more than 31 days?

OK, I have read through the document for this year. Rather hard to understand what they are saying.

Do they mean, those with you are not covered for more than 31 consecutive days at any one time or do they mean the person that is insured is not covered.

As they state earlier that the carte is valid for a whole season and it covers any unused part of a season pass if you have an accident. Then I think you are covered.

BUT, if you leave the resort for one day within 31 days and then go back, you would also still be covered as you have then not exceeded the 31 consecutive days clause in one resort. Legal wording. Any lawyers on here please help!

Here is the link so anyone else can read the whole policy in English for yourselves. This is a very interesting legal point I think.

http://www.ffs.fr/pdf/carteneige/FFScn-assurance-10-11-en.pdf

My advice to anyone reading this. Read the policy wording for yourself and then make your own mind up if this suits your needs. I use it as it suits me, but it might not suit anyone else.

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.

Bandit, I do not entertain that idea. Although my OH started skiing a few years after me, she is almost as experienced, and much more sensible ~ why don't we apportion blame to her? :wink:
As it happens, we were stood on the side of the piste, I was looking down the route and mentally planning around 40/50 turns, and then just took off. At that time, I genuinely believed that the others would just continue on the piste run, and we would catch up. I cannot be held responsible for skiing with irresponsible people.

Snowcrazy, thank you for your expertise and strong interest.

Dave Mac wrote: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)

bandit wrote:

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.

In Switzerland (at least in the German speaking Kantons) there is a movement to try to hold the most experienced group member responsible in the event of an avalanche accident. I'm not sure if this also applies in Austria.

While most resorts do some avalanche control on off piste areas directly accessible from lifts you can't assume it is always done. Last weekend when skiing in Lenzerheide I witnessed 5 snall to medium sized slabs that had been skier triggered. Some of them on slopes less then 35deg the majority of them within metres of the piste! All of them were associated with windloading but not necessarily on the areas the avalanche bulletin said to look out for. The Avalanche risk was 2! Moral of the story is don't just assume something next to the piste is safe.

As for the south facing slope being more/less dangerous. Surely you've got to take the time of year into account. In deep winter North facing slopes tend to be more dangerous for the reasons that Bandit mentioned. In spring the risk for wet snow avalanches on south facing slopes increases dramatically. What you really should be looking out for is the slope exposures specifically mentioned in the avalanche bulletin too.

Sorry to bring this very old thread back to life. However, anyone interested in this subject will find the results of the Henry's Avalanche Talk investigation into off-piste insurance cover (partially inspired by some of the comments on this thread) at the following address.

http://www.henrysavalanchetalk.com/off-piste-ski-insurance

The report summary can be found in the pdf at the bottom of the page.

Many thanks to Chris and those at HAT for such a useful and extensive bit of research!

I will be getting my ski insurance sorted soon for March 5th trip to Zell Am See & would like to get some opinions from members before I do.
As you are probably all aware the question of pre health conditions is asked ie I have type 2 diabetes which proved not to be problem with them.
Last March I damaged my MCL this has been diagnosed by a private pysio this week & says that I should be OK to ski after building the required muscle back up.
The hospital here has not diagnosed my injury & no treatment has been given, after 3 months saw Traumatologist, 1 month later MRI scan
2 months later X Ray 1 month later saw Traumatologist again who refused to give me his diagnosis, just said we will try physiotherapy first or we will operate if it doesn't work, well after waiting 4 months & still no appointment for the physiotherapy I went to a private pysio whose comments are above.
She also told me the MRI scan should have been done within a month of the injury as the ligaments will be changing all the time & make diagnosis difficult.

So what would your opinions be as to whether this info should be given to the insurer as a pre condition or consider it to be cured & not relevant for their use, obviously I would not want to put this to the insurance co as they would bump the premium up to suit themselves.
Sorry its long winded but any advice welcomed.
Cheers Chris

Chris - if it is on your formal medical records then you do need to disclose this as a previous medical condition.

Thanks for your reply Oldandy.

I agree with what you're saying about my medical records, but confused as whether its relevant as far as insurance goes.

I would assume a pre condition is some thing you would still be suffering with during you're ski trip ie the Diabetes, if you had ligament damage & no treatment by the health service in the following 11 months would it still be considered ongoing.

When I posted this question I thought there would have been quite a few members who have had some form of knee injury & had to deal with this situation on their next ski trip & I could learn from their experiences.As said if I tell the insures they will probably bump the premium to cover their selves regardless of right or wrong.
Hopefully more replies especially from members who have had this dilemma will post their thoughts.
Thanks
Chris