The Insurance Minefield ~ Chapter 2

Guys,

To be honest i have only really skimmed this thread so forgive me if this has been covered.

I, like Dave Mac, am looking at Direct Travel. In fact i was insured with them last year and my renewal is due this week.
I have scoured their website in search of reasons to be wary (inspired by this and other threads) but find nothing to give me the shivers.
The only thing that bugs me is this one line:

"the direct or indirect effect of you using alcohol or solvents"

I guess that this is going to be common place in all policies anyway but do you think that a glass of wine at lunch and a fall in the pm is going to be an issue????

I would also be grateful if someone with a little more experience in the ski insurance could take a few mins to skim this policy and tell me if there is anything that should be seriously considered.
I don't expect to be doing any serious off piste but would like the chance to cut a few corners on pistes without the worry of being deemed 'off piste'

http://www.direct-travel.co.uk/documents/current-policy-wording.pdf


Thanks all

Jon

I struggle to comprehend how we can develop six pages of text on such a subject as Insurance :?

Ian,
I think insurance is one of those subjects that is very boring until you actually need it! I would guess that most people don't read the small print until they need to claim for something.

What I noticed about Snapzzz's insurance is that it does seem to cover off-piste, but not ski jumping or the use of bob sleighs or luges. And their get out clause is that they don't cover you for 'your self-exposure to needless peril' (unless you're rescuing someone else).

The last few days at Tignes I have been amazed to see people ski-ing down a piste that wasn't actually open, and going off piste in spite of the verbal and written warnings about not going off piste because of the dangers of falling into crevasses in the glacier. And, in fact, on Tuesday apparently someone did go off piste and fall into one of these, only luckily for them the rescue services got them out. But I wouldn't have thought their insurance would pay for this.

I actually saw someone, only about 10 yards off piste, fall over and nearly fall into a crevasse. People can be incredibly stupid, and I can quite see why insurers don't want to pay for this.

Ally

Absolutely right Ally, why on earth would they Insure you for that level of Stupidity,the vast majority of us do not ski too far off piste so those who do should expect to pay higher rates due
to the higher risks involved.

So how for do you draw a line to qualify "not too far off piste"?
I have started to really enjoy skiing off piste in the past couple of years, although I hardly hike up peaks where there is no piste and ski down the slope - YET.
But that is skiing, I see no reason for it to be more risky than skiing on piste where there are idiots with and without helmets on bombing around dangerously, some of them drunk. In fact, thinking about it, maybe off piste should be a lower premium as you only have yourself to think about (generally).

As for people who ski off piste on a glacier where there are obvious dangers, you dont deserve to be covered if you are that stupid. Maybe insurance companies need to change their wording to include the wording "itinerary routes" which technically are pistes and not off piste, as I am sure many of us ski those and find them more like skiing off piste but without the risk of being out of bounds on the map.

Have I opened another can of worms?

What you have to remember Tony is you don't know what is underneath, I have done it myself a bush covered in powder and bobs your uncle Arse over face. So the chances of doing you self a bit of damage is slightly higher.
But in reality as I'm sure you all know the Insurance companys will wiggle out of paying out on a claim ,,,,,, right gotta go and see my dentist.

I appreciate that Ian, point taken. But I see the biggest problems in terms of accidents and claims coming on packed pistes where people are careless.

Tony_H wrote:I appreciate that Ian, point taken. But I see the biggest problems in terms of accidents and claims coming on packed pistes where people are careless.

I agree with that but the Ins companies possible know nothing about skiing and are just there to make as much money as possible without paying anything out ... am I bitter and twisted or just a realist.