The Insurance Minefield ~ Chapter 2

Yes, we are reading this lot from our perspective. How would the Underwriter interpret the wording in their favour to reduce their costs? Most of the recent unease that has arisen in skier Policyholders is because of what is not written in these Policies, maybe we have to read between the lines too?

I understand why you're wary. From what I recall the words 'reasonable cost' feature quite a few times, and different people will no doubt have different views of reasonable. The standard cover I looked at goes up to £2,000,000 though so any figure well within that (even £20,000 for a chopper) would be difficult to class as unreasonable, otherwise why have this inflated limit?

In terms of reading between the lines of what is not written... oooeeee where do you start and end? They had a noteable absence of the vague wording which is included in others and is causing (understandable) concern. Statements made are pretty clear, and this (to me) gives very little room for the underwriters to manoeuvre on interpretation, as opposed to some of the other examples. I'm no legal expert in insurance, but to add in brand new caveats after an event, when they haven't even been alluded to in the policy beforehand, sounds like a really weak basis on which to debate a claim. SCGB do have a page on which they provide guidance on off piste skiing/boarding (http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/respectthemountain/safety/whatcanyoudo.aspx). This is SCGB advice though, not (as far as I can see) part of any policy offered.

Maybe it would help to come up with a few standard scenarios to put to the insurance companies, that would test the most common concerns. It might only take three or four carefully worded questions to clear up many of the ambiguities, and would allow direct comparisons.

Maybe it would help to come up with a few standard scenarios to put to the insurance companies, that would test the most common concerns. It might only take three or four carefully worded questions to clear up many of the ambiguities, and would allow direct comparisons.

Good thinking. That's what I had in mind initially. Problem - I don't ski off piste so can't fill in the blanks properly! :oops: Came up with this a while back, not sure if there's anything of use...

"To evaluate off piste conditions I check the avi warning level each day, for the purpose of this example it is 2. This is defined as "Snow stability - On some steep slopes the snow is only moderately stable [1]. Elsewhere it is very stable.

[1] Stability - Generally described in more detail in the avalanche bulletin (regarding the altitude, aspect, type of terrain etc.).

Flag colour – yellow as with lowest level which is 1.

Avalanche risk - Avalanches may be triggered when heavy [2] loads are applied, especially on a few generally identified steep slopes. Large spontaneous avalanches are not expected.

[2] heavy: two or more skiers or boarders without spacing between them, a single hiker or climber, a grooming machine, avalanche blasting."

The avi bulletin (for the purpose of this example) stated danger areas to be XX altitude, North facing aspect, XX terrain. We also check with a local ski instructor who advised XX based on his/her knowledge of weather and snow conditions over the whole season, along with personal experience of conditions on that day.

Our route is planned to avoid areas raised as concerns above. As a party of two, we ski/board one at a time with greater than 10m spacing in between, as recommended. Equipment is carried by both parties i.e. probe, shovel, transceiver.

As you can see, the above indicates that I take all reasonable steps to ensure that this activity bears no unnecessary risk. Should an incident happen in the above circumstances, please confirm whether I would be covered under your policy, or not. If not, please indicate which specific element/s led you to this decision in order for me to be able to modify my approach as necessary, to fall within the boundaries of this policy."

Emma, you are focussing on avalanche risk. Fair enough in context. Direct Travel does not refer directly to this.
I have sent messages out to three Gemeinden (local authorities) in Tirol. One has replied by refering to the Tirol avalanche information site. This tells me that there is no direct Gemeinde guidance/warnings. There will be the usual Berglift warnings, which follow the ski code.
All in all, I take comfort from this. I frequently refuse routes for differing reasons, all concerned with my longevity. Twice, there were avalanches, in the areas I had avoided.
Also, I am not the least bit interested in carrying any gear with me. I don't do enough off piste do be that concerned.

There are those that look in great depth at the subject, and if you look at the Irasmos model for avalanche risk:
Risk relation = AversionRi.j pj.Pi,j. Ai. Vi,j. ?i,ji
I just want cover for a skiing accident, rescue and medical.

Doh, I forgot. It might not occur to us that Avalanche risk level 2 was much to be concerned about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/avalanche-kills-at-least-11-722075.html
I suspect the lvel 2 designation!

I am going to write to the Post Office and ask them if their cover includes search and rescue, and also if I am allowed to go over the tiny jumps (like in my avatar) in the snow park during my lessons. I am going to look a real idiot if I have to tell my instructor that I'm not allowed to do it because I'm not covered by insurance! And last year I really enjoyed it.

Ally

Dave Mac wrote:Doh, I forgot. It might not occur to us that Avalanche risk level 2 was much to be concerned about.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/avalanche-kills-at-least-11-722075.html
I suspect the lvel 2 designation!

Quite right Dave Mac. Level 2 denotes a Moderate Risk and precautions must be taken. I'm sure I've read before that most accidents are at Level 2.

The Warning Flag colour coding for Europe.

http://www.j2ski.com/ski_tips/Avalanche_Safety/Avalanche_Risk_Scale.html

I was not aware that the US and Canada had adopted a new grading for 2010/11!

http://snowboarding.transworld.net/1000129089/news/new-avalanche-danger-scale-for-201011/

AllyG wrote:I am going to write to the Post Office and ask them if their cover includes search and rescue, and also if I am allowed to go over the tiny jumps (like in my avatar) in the snow park during my lessons. I am going to look a real idiot if I have to tell my instructor that I'm not allowed to do it because I'm not covered by insurance! And last year I really enjoyed it.

Ally

Think carefully before sending the letter, because you may be making a declaration of intent, which the insurer will keep on record, and ask you lots of questions about in the event of a claim. However if your instructor takes you into the snowpark and you wipe out, to be certain, just ask them to drag your body back to the piste, before calling for assistance :mrgreen: