Statement from Snowcard

We obtained this statement from Snowcard.  This makes good sense to the HAT team and provides some clarity.  The advice is sensible and reassuring

Cheap is not best

Specialist insurers like ourselves build up long term relationships with insurers, we have policy specifications that we want to provide for our clients, we negotiate these for a premium, we sell the policy at the price we have agreed with the underwriter. The bottom line is that as a broker if the priority is being cheaper than everyone else, you will have to accept more exclusion’s in the policy. The higher the rate you allow the insurer to charge, the more likely you are to get wider cover and fewer problems in the event of a claim.

Are disputes common?

Insurance is not an exact science and no 2 claims are ever the same. The insurer’s job is to apply the policy wording in force to the scenario presented to them on the claims form. This is fundamentally why insurance is a difficult subject and open to dispute. Having said this, disputes are rare; insurers are heavily regulated and on the whole very fair in their dealings. They pay (a lot) more claims than they decline. Declined claims are normally for good reason and not on a whim. Without insurance, we would not be able to afford to take the risk of high medical and repatriation costs from ski accidents. We all as skiers need insurance and have a vested interest in a healthy, profitable insurance market place that services skiers efficiently.

Do we pay out?

We have been insuring skiers for 20 years and we have never not had a claim paid for an off piste skier for disregarding safety advice. I can not, because of the position I am in, ever suggest that a skier or boarder disregard safety advice and do anything other than follow local advice and recommendations. If I am approached by a skier saying he wants insurance for skiing in high risk situations where other skiers are being told not to, I have no option other than to decline to quote. To take on that risk would prejudice the profitability of our scheme, would weaken our underwriting relationship and would ultimately force up costs for everyone else. I have no objection to him taking the risks, but I do not want to take on his financial risk if he is being deliberately reckless.

Carrying safety equipment

For anyone skiing off piste in back country areas, whether they are experienced or not, with a guide or instructor or not, they should carry the appropriate safety equipment. We do not make this a policy condition although given the current level of debate, this may become necessary to clarify where the line is in relation to ‘taking reasonable precautions’ over personal safety. We have stopped short of insisting that helmets are worn but that is another argument!

Going with a guide

I do not make the following statement lightly – insuring a lot of off piste skiers and boarders is extremely difficult to get right and it is the responsibility of those taking part in the sport that they act responsibly if they want insurers to continue providing cover. 9 out of 10 insurers insist that all off piste activity is in the company of a guide. We do not have such a restriction so for those who do not want to be restricted, they must appreciate that having cover brings with it responsibilities to act reasonably. The test of what is reasonable is dependent on the situation at the time. It is a condition of all insurance that you act as if you are uninsured. This fundamental principal applies to your home, motor and life insurance as well.

Examples of reckless

So – what is reckless behaviour?  What about these examples, make up your own mind which are reckless

• Two 21 year old boarders with 2 years experience go backcountry boarding in a level 4 warning without safety equipment?
• A seasoned instructor with 30 years experience skiing solo in a level 5?
• Following a young tour rep leading a group of intermediate skiers off piste in a white out where warnings are at 3 and you are a weak skier?
• Drinking a bottle of tequila and heading off down steep couloirs in a level 2?
• A group of 4 seasoned skiers with full safety equipment, having registered their planned route with the piste authorities setting of in a level 4?
• A professionally guided group heading off to learn avalanche techniques in a level 3?
• A group of strong intermediate skiers heading off in a level 4 warning where one has a transceiver but the others don’t?

Which are reckless and which are not?

Definition of reckless

There is not a short statement I can make that would simplify the definition of reckless. All I can say is that anyone buying Snowcard insurance can ask me in advance whether I would cover them in a given situation. If they don’t like my answer, they can find another insurer but there is not an insurer out there who will provide cover without restrictions of some form or degree. Insurance is not an unlimited financial guarantee that you can do what you want where you want, it is a contract with limits agreeing to accept risk transfer subject to policy conditions and everyone has a personal duty to check those conditions can be met by their level of activity.

In summary, you won’t get better than a Fortis/Ageas underwritten Snowcard policy and the only people who will have a problem are those who act in a way that HAT would regard as reckless.  If there is a dodgy situation that Fortis are unsure about, they will ask me what I think. I can’t remember the last time that happened and whilst I appreciate there is a lot of forum chat out there whenever I look at it, it strikes me that a lot of the time it is simply a matter of lack of understanding that causes problems.  I am more than happy for your forum members to ask me questions directly if they are unsure about their insurance or how it works in practice but too many strings are based on single situation hearsay or gossip where no one has the full picture or information to properly see why an insurer acted in the way it did.

Russell Dadson (Managing Director Snowcard)

Note from HAT.  We have clarified that some statements made by Fortis staff about Snowcard and avalanche warnings to other skiers and quoted on forums are not strictly correct.  The lesson from this is that you need to be sure that the person you are talking to is talking with authority and not just being over cautious becuase they are not sure.