The Insurance Minefield ~ Chapter 2

The policy document and any subsequent written communication between you and the insurance company form your contract with the insurers. Not what Fred said on a forum or Bill wrote on a Facebook page.

Fogg travel have in the past used CNA as their underwriter. CNA have already refused to pay out for S&R costs at an avalanche risk of 3 (back in 2005 so this subject is nothing new). This was even after an avalanche expert wrote a report stating that the victims had not taken a "foresable risk" and the head of piste security for the ski resort had said they been just unlucky. So we've established the principal of not paying out at risk 3. We'll have to see if HAT give us any specific examples.

Fogg now use Union Reiseversicherung as do many other winter travel insurance companies. Ok different underwriter, so maybe different cover. However the policy wording is the same as in the case I've mentioned above.

The principal difference between a risk 3 and 4 is the range of slopes where avalanches can occur. At risk level 3 avalanches are still possible on the slope aspects specified in the bulletin. Fogg's underwriters: Union Reiseversicherung will not cover you if you enter an "avalanche risk area" or take act unreasonably.

As a further data point, the majority of avalanche incidents are at risk level 3, which should be considered as a "higher" end risk level for the purposes of backcountry travel. Avalanche experts say "you need a lot of experience to travel safely at this risk level".

I would suggest that anyone using Fogg travel who wants to ski off piste at risk 3 or above gets a written addendum to their policy.

Lets turn to the "information" that is doing the rounds, for example on the first page of this thread. Fogg may have said something like "do not ski at risk 4 or 5". I would advise that what is posted to this thread or on facebook is far from legally binding and that they are not giving you a green light to ski at risk 3 or otherwise but specifically excluding risks 4 and 5. I would suggest that HAT and anyone else involve a insurance lawyer in their investigation. We can assume Henry is duly qualified for the avalanche side of things.

Obviously you will have to test this with an actual claim from Fogg. Good luck with that.

I thought it might be helpful to see what our obligations are under Swiss law.
This document http://www.seilbahnen.org/dcs/users/6/Verkehrssicherungspflicht_06_d.pdf issued by Seilbahnen Schweiz, http://www.seilbahnen.org/index_de.html the Swiss cable way operators association, lists the measures that the lift companies have to take to ensure safety. It also details the consequences of reckless behaviour on our behalf which includes ignoring avalanche warnings. This can lead to prosecution (as a last resort) under the road traffic act. There are no laws relating specifically to snow sports here in Switzerland; the law treats ski runs as roads. It would be a really bad idea to trigger an avalanche that ran onto a piste, as you would also be liable for the cost of searching the debris for any victims (if there were any victims the consequences will be severe, and may result in trial for manslaughter). You would also have to pay for cleaning up the mess.

The competent local authority in these matters is the piste service and the patrollers are empowered to undertake duties normally carried out by the police, such as the investigation of accidents and the apprehension of people suspected of committing a criminal offence. There is a copy of an accident report form here: http://www.seilbahnen.org/dcs/users/174/ProtokollQuerA4_d.pdf

The document above is based on guidelines produced by SKUS, the Swiss Commission for Accident Prevention on Ski Runs http://www.skus.ch/ There is a considerable amount of legal information on their website including a synopsis of the legal implications of skiing off piste, provided by a state prosecutor from Canton Berne: http://www.skus.ch/pdf/__Lawinen_Freeriden%20und%20Variantenfahren.pdf

Unfortunately none of this information is available in English, but some of it is available in French and Italian.

The avalanche bulletins are issued by a Swiss government agency, the Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research (part of the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research) with input from the local avalanche warning services. (Here in Valais each valley has its own team, usually made up of mountain guides and a member of the local ski resort piste service). The supreme court considers the avalanche bulletins reliable enough to be used as evidence. Other alpine countries have similar organisations - see the links here: http://www.avalanches.org/

Admin's Shears (a bit like Occam's Razor but rustier) have been applied.

Please keep on-topic people; this is an important subject. Abusive or aggressive posts will be removed so say what you have to say politely - it's really not that difficult. :evil:

davidof wrote:The policy document and any subsequent written communication between you and the insurance company form your contract with the insurers. Not what Fred said on a forum or Bill wrote on a Facebook page.

I would suggest that anyone using Fogg travel who wants to ski off piste at risk 3 or above gets a written addendum to their policy.

Lets turn to the "information" that is doing the rounds, for example on the first page of this thread. Fogg may have said something like "do not ski at risk 4 or 5". I would advise that what is posted to this thread or on facebook is far from legally binding and that they are not giving you a green light to ski at risk 3 or otherwise but specifically excluding risks 4 and 5. I would suggest that HAT and anyone else involve a insurance lawyer in their investigation. We can assume Henry is duly qualified for the avalanche side of things.

Obviously you will have to test this with an actual claim from Fogg. Good luck with that.

What the "information" doing the rounds does tell us, is that in this instance Fogg are one of the insurance companies (or their Underwriters) who are using the Avalanche Risk Scale to determine the financial limits of their exposure as a company. Some UK Insurers, not all, are not using this scale as a measure, which can produce a lack of clarity for the client, as to the extent of their cover. I don't believe that any postings I have seen have suggested that skiing at Level 3 is acceptable to Fogg Insurance.

I'm sorry but I'm beginning to doze off again

Ian Wickham wrote:I'm sorry but I'm beginning to doze off again

No need to apologise Wickers, must be time for your nap )

Back to Direct Travel, where there was a requirement to stay within local authority rulings. The Wildschoenau TB sent me on a wild goose chase towards national Avalanche codes.
I have just discovered the info on the Bergbahn site.

Under "Off Piste Areas" ~ "Off piste areas away from marked routes with danger of avalanches, snow slides and other dangers require a lot of alpine experience and should therefore only be skied together with a qualified instructor. Areas frequently used for leaving pisted slopes are signposted with a warning „HERE YOU ARE LEAVING THE MARKED AND SAFE SKI AREA-ALPINE DANGER". A flashing light on the panorama board, under the sign „ACUTE AVALANCHE DANGER", warns you about the current situation on particular pistes. The signpost with a large white hand saying „STOP - DANGER OF AVALANCHES" is situated at the beginning of very steep slopes and areas which are known for avalanches. They are erected as a constant warning and are there throughout the season!" All standard stuff.

Under "Danger and First Aid/Mountain Rescue" ~ "A mountain rescue costs 120 Euros for rescue within the ski area. Helicopter and ambulance must be paid separately."

Under "Pistes & Routes" conflictingly, ~ "Ski routes are marked by an orange diamond shaped board with ski route written on it. These routes are not prepared nor controlled by the piste patrol. They should only be used by experienced skiers or when accompanied by a qualified ski instructor."

Some interesting definitions there Dave Mac. In the event of a claim, I wonder what a UK Insurer would make of the phrase " require a lot of alpine experience".
It also strikes me that no mention is made of using Mountain Guides, only ski instructors.

Do you think you'd pass muster as an experienced skier )

I guess it all depends on the sphere of experience.

There is a difference in how Itineraries seem to be managed. I do know that where I ski in Switzerland, Itineraries have open and closed signs, get skied by piste patrol and are most definitely avalanche controlled.