Choosing The Correct Insurance Policy When Skiing Off Piste-The Insurance Minefield

bandit wrote:ise, this thread was born out of the need to gain clarification in Policy wordings. My own insurer, (for Europe) believes that someone in authority will be along to "open" the off piste each day. Amongst the list of those they consider of suitable stature to perform this task, are ski instructors. This I have in writing.

It's perfectly reasonable, ski instructors, at the right level, are more than qualified to judge if an area is safe. It's quite reasonable that an insurer doesn't think the average skier from Milton Keynes on a week holiday is capable of making the judgement themselves, I don't either. And I see people all the time who fancy themselves a bit knowledgeable in places where they've no grasp of the risk at all.

The policies are perfectly clear, if you think you can rock up from your self catering package tour apartment declare a slope is safe then expect someone else to pay for the helicopter to lift you out then they're telling you it's not on.

I think you'll find insurance underwriters a lot better informed than you imagine. You wouldn't expect to be insured to drive a car without having passed the test and you'd be horrified to share the road with people who'd not passed. It's ridiculous to argue that someone with no formal training or qualifications should automatically be judged safe in this terrain simply on their own say-so.

All the noise is people looking for loopholes because in their own judgement they're some sort of expert. They may well be but it's hardly likely to impress an insurer and it probably wouldn't wash in a court (although that test is a little different).

This is not relevant to the vast majority of skiers apart from it being them picking up the tab for a few holiday heroes who seem to think everyone else is obliged to pay for their potential misadventures.

Few people are going to pay 10x on-piste only prices for the same level of cover.

It seems that, at the moment, you get what you pay for. It costs about 300 quid for annual cover for 'out of bounds' skiing in North America and Europe. If you look at a typical policy sold as part of a package, it often contains numerous get out clauses for even basic non-skiing related incidents. There are many policies that contain a clause allowing the insurance company to demand receipts for all of the clothing in your lost baggage before paying out. How likely is anyone to have those?

In a more serious vein, many skiing policies seem to exclude skiing outside of piste markers in Europe. This would include that nice 2m wide untracked slope between two parallel pistes. How they apply Euro-centric rules to north America Skiing, where there is no such thing as a piste, and thus no such thing as off-piste, is anybody's guess. How many policies available in the UK, that are supposed to cover North America, mention the phrases, ski hill, in-bounds, out of bounds, back-country or any of the other North American terms?

If underwriters are a lot better informed than we imagine, then what is their motivation behind being so unclear? Some are clear, generally the most expensive, some are extremely vague, mostly the cheaper ones. In my opinion, this speaks volumes.

ise, I'm not convinced I could pick out a "highest level" ski instructor from a lineup, let alone, prove that I'd consulted them about a place to ski.

I'm not sure I could be classified as a Holiday Hero, however I do know from my current Insurers' Policy, that if I skin up a piste with my Harness in my backpack, (just in case) that turns me into a Ski Mountaineer and I would not be covered, so I need to leave it behind :?

My current insurer has numerous exclusions regarding Health, which they have grouped together with Rescue and Repatriation. Basically if you've ever visited your local Dr about anything ever, it's excluded, along with anything that might remotely be related. Though I'm having problems with their written example of Diabetes and Heart Attacks being linked :?:

Anyway, it's a significantly bigger problem than just off piste cover, though that's a good place to start.

Based on my afternoon's light reading, do not go into a Snow Park (even to cross it) if you have cover with Direct Travel, as they do not mention them in their Policy, and they do exclude Ski Acrobatics.

steverandomno Agreed. Many ski holidaymakers have found out to their cost that the Baggage and Equipment cover they paid good money for is utter carp when they need to recover their loss.

steverandomno wrote:Few people are going to pay 10x on-piste only prices for the same level of cover.

It seems that, at the moment, you get what you pay for. It costs about 300 quid for annual cover for 'out of bounds' skiing in North America and Europe. If you look at a typical policy sold as part of a package, it often contains numerous get out clauses for even basic non-skiing related incidents. There are many policies that contain a clause allowing the insurance company to demand receipts for all of the clothing in your lost baggage before paying out. How likely is anyone to have those?

In a more serious vein, many skiing policies seem to exclude skiing outside of piste markers in Europe. This would include that nice 2m wide untracked slope between two parallel pistes. How they apply Euro-centric rules to north America Skiing, where there is no such thing as a piste, and thus no such thing as off-piste, is anybody's guess. How many policies available in the UK, that are supposed to cover North America, mention the phrases, ski hill, in-bounds, out of bounds, back-country or any of the other North American terms?

If underwriters are a lot better informed than we imagine, then what is their motivation behind being so unclear? Some are clear, generally the most expensive, some are extremely vague, mostly the cheaper ones. In my opinion, this speaks volumes.

At this point the directors of my imaginary insurer are in stitches, we've taken this type of feedback to our AGM and along with the dafter claims & we're looking at putting it in a humorous book.

You know exactly the difference between the US and Europe and exactly how the rules would apply. You know the policy covers you in Europe for open pistes and freeride areas whether they're prepared or not and you know that depends on if the resort authorities have declared them open. You know exactly, precisely to millimetre when you step out of the terrain covered into what isn't.

In North America you know exactly how the rules work as well, in-bound, secured areas regardless of if they're prepared are covered and you know to the 100th of an inch the exact moment you leave that terrain.

steverandomno wrote:In a more serious vein, many skiing policies seem to exclude skiing outside of piste markers in Europe. This would include that nice 2m wide untracked slope between two parallel pistes.

So, anywhere within two metres of any piste is totally safe and should be covered on every insurance policy? Two of our actuaries just collapsed after hysterical fits and needed to be hospitalised. Again you know perfectly well that's not true. And I know what the reply is, you're saying you can tell the difference, maybe you can, what you're not able to explain is how the insurer knows it's you and not Holiday Harry with a new pair of fat skis and no clue.

bandit wrote:ise, I'm not convinced I could pick out a "highest level" ski instructor from a lineup, let alone, prove that I'd consulted them about a place to ski.

You're being asked, as a holidaymaker and amateur, to consult with someone who's a professional. Doesn't matter what level they are, the insurer trusts their judgement over yours. You know that.

bandit wrote:I'm not sure I could be classified as a Holiday Hero, however I do know from my current Insurers' Policy, that if I skin up a piste with my Harness in my backpack, (just in case) that turns me into a Ski Mountaineer and I would not be covered, so I need to leave it behind

well, if you're an experienced ski mountaineer with many years experience travelling in the winter environment then I'm sure you'll have no problem convincing your insurer of that. You ought to give them a little consideratiobn though as when they get your cheque they can't tell it's you and not someone on a package tour who's got no experience at all.

ise, my point was, that I can't tell which one has been on the staff for 10 years, from the one who arrived at the start of the season. Is it fair to ask them to make the call. If it was me, I would say no to everything, to avoid being blamed.

It does not matter if I am experienced or not. For this example, the Policy says Harnesses are excluded, so no cover exists whilst either wearing one for safety, or carrying one for use if needed.

Likewise, it's okay to have Ski Crampons, but not Boot Crampons. They agreed to cover me whilst skiing the Vallee Blanche, and as I got stuffed for that by the Guides Co. I used, I never got to find out if my Insurer expected me to slither down the Arete to keep my Policy valid, by refusing the offer of Crampons from my Guide.

Ise, I have taken the time to read some of your website/blog. You appear to be a mountaineer with excellent credentials, although it's not clear whether you ski (I assume you do as you're on this site). I don't think the example of your theoretical insurance company is helping too much at the moment. Your criticisms appear to be based on several assumptions, which I don't believe are entirely correct. You clearly take your mountaineering seriously, therefore you must have a decent insurance policy which covers more than the average holiday hiker would need, and have, at some point been in a similar position to those who are looking for help here. Perhaps you could offer some constructive guidance to Bandit etc who are also simply looking for an insurance policy which is fit for their purpose?

By the way Bandit I've only had a chance to contact one co. so far. Sorry :oops:

EmmaEvs, no worries, thanks for spending your time on this, I appreciate it :D