Today's Ezine has inspired a lot of you to write to us at HAT and tell us what you think about insurance policies in the ski industry.
We LOVE getting your emails, however your comments will probably help other users of Henry's Avalanche Talk, not to mention fellow purchasers of ski insurance policies. This forum was built so you can get your opinions out there, so please don't be shy!
Please share your experiences with insurance companies. We are keen to learn from everyone's experience.
The variations and the numerous ambiguities in the wording of off piste insurance policies lead me to believe that to be confident that my insurance cover will hold up while skiing off piste I should ensure the group I ski with takes reasonable care - which I translate broadly as follows:
1. always wearing a transceiver and carrying probe and shovel;
2. recent transceiver/avalanche search training;
3. avalanche risk 3 or less;
4. with a qualified mountain guide;
5. following "Golden Rules" for off piste skiing;
6. skiing terrain appropriate to our level of experience;
7. avoiding areas with recent significant avalanche warning signs.
I'd welcome views on this.
This ties in with our approach on nearly every point. For us whether you should always go with a guide depends on your experience and knowledge and the kind of terrain that you enter, and who you are with. But only you can judge that.
Chris
This is just my view but i feel the folling could be a good option :
1. It does seem you have to read the small print on all insurances now to make sure, especially if venturing off-piste. I have insurance but even after reading the small print it can be deceiving.
2. Yes it does seem a Carte Neige card is great but as an add on to your normal insurance. I never had before but now doing a season here think its worth to have and recommended by all. YES i know you may never need it but its always the way when you dont get it you sometimes end up having an accident but when you have it you dont have an accident but if you do your covered.
3. Seems like if you go off-piste you need to carry the equipment now min transceiver,probe,shovel if not then your insurance may not cover you, its worth thinking about. Also some kind of training and knowing how to use equipment is needed. Henery's Talk and practice in the free Avalanche Park top of Transarc ( yes you need your own tranceiver )
4. Even when having insurance its no 100% GUARANTEE that they will pay out, sorry yes im cynical but then i look at things in reality. Unfortunately in todays climate of cut backs if they dont need to pay out then they will not.
Just joined and hence a little behind in this discussion - sorry :)
Insurance is always a very emotive subject. Everyone you talk to believe their have the best cover. I have always taken out the Executive cover offered by the Ski Club of Great Britain.
However, a good friend of mine had a pretty serious accident last year that resulted in him being 'blood-waggoned' off the mountain. Naturally, piste patrol wanted to know they would be paid. The process seems to be either a)without a carte neige card they keep your ski equipment until they receive payment of b)with a carte neige card they simple hand you over to the waiting ambulance - there is no need for them to keep any equipment as they know they are going to be paid. One you arrive at the medical centre the process reverts to the normal insurance way - that is you pay and they claim back.
It seems then that the carte neige has a very big advantage over other insurances in that at the time of the accident you don't have to worry/have no hassle.
So this year we brought season carte neige cards for the skiing bit and will use the free travel insurance from our bank for the travel bit.
Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear from anyone who has experience of using the carte neige card for rescue/claim and most importantly, hearing on how well the carte neige card covers off-piste skiing.
Two years ago my son fell on piste on the glacier at the top of Les Deux Alpes. Ski patrol turned up and thought he had a broken pelvis and whistled up a helicopter. Once it was on its way they asked to see his lift pass and on seeing we had paid for carte neige insurance it was smiles all round and plain sailing. They told us that it always surprises them when tourists have paid for the carte neige as most don't bother.They couldn't have been more helpful and it didn't cost anything. The price without the carte neige would have been in the region of 750 euros so the 2 euros a day it costs seems like money well spent.
You are right about Carte Neige
The pitfall in your plan is that if you have an accident off-piste without a guide then your bank's insurance probably will not pick up the extras not covered by Carte Neige. Also Carte Neige is very convenient for the blood wagon bit, but very difficult to administer the rest unless you are fluent in French and like dealing with French bureacracy.
A bill for a major off piste accident could easily be £25K to £50K, Carte Neige will not deal with this
I agree Carte Neige is a convenient add on, but you still need proper off piste insurance.
read the article for more info
http://www.henrysavalanchetalk.com/off-piste-ski-insurance
Chris
I've been using Dog Tag (Covers Off-Piste as standard with winter sports cover), but never had to claim.
They sound pretty good, but I wonder what would happen if it was put to the test? Has anyone had any experience with them?
In their FAQ they write:
Q. Do you cover Off Piste Skiing and what is the definition of Off Piste?
A. The generally accepted understanding of off-piste (or backcountry) skiing or boarding means 'going out of bounds', i.e. outside the resort boundary (if there is a boundary) or simply off the marked pistes if within the resort area.
If you are going out of bounds or outside marked areas of the resort, we recommend you do so with a fully qualified local guide because, in our view, you will then be taken to the best areas and you'll have a higher degree of comfort concerning your safety. However, we do not insist that you take a guide, you are insured for off-piste without a guide provided that you are not going alone or going against advice. And remember, even some areas within a resort may be considered out of bounds because they are hazardous. In most parts of North America, going out of bounds contravenes local law and you may, at best have your lift pass confiscated or worse, face arrest and have an overnight stay courtesy of the Sherriff's office. Normally there is a physical fence with warning signs so you shouldn't be in any doubt.
It is your responsibility to ensure that on any particular day you are aware of and obey local advice, information and instructions given by the resort authorities and that you obey any signs and information you encounter on the mountain - the source of this information will vary resort to resort and country to country and it is your responsibility to find out. If a section is marked 'closed' there will be a very good reason for it (e.g. high avalanche danger) and ignoring such signs or advice may invalidate your cover. You should be aware that under the terms of cover, needless self-exposure to peril except in an endeavour to save human life may invalidate your cover.
Obviously, you must never ski off-piste alone.
Q. What is meant by 'taking reasonable care'?
A. With any insurance, the policyholder should always act as though he has no insurance at all and take all measures to protect their property and themselves. You should not knowingly put yourself in harms way and you should be aware that under the terms of cover, needless self-exposure to peril except in an endeavor to save human life may invalidate your cover.
I have no reason to believe DogTag have unduly onerous restrictions from their underwriters. In this statement, they are trying to express the general duty of care that we all have as beneficiaries of insurance. we must act with reasonmable care, not engage in foreseeable danger and act in the same way we would if we did not have insurance.
These provisions are no stricter than on other policies we have investigated. The main points are do not ignore closed signs. All policies enforce this clause. and act with reasonable care (as if not insured)- this is part of general insurance law and applies to all insurance in any field of activity.
I will be publishing a full article on this subject soon. This will inlcude some questions you ask directly of Dog Tag to get clarification. It may be worth pushing them further on the boundaries of their cover. We have not investigated their policy terms in detail, so have no specific view on their policy. But you can read the Snowcard statement which describes the limits of their cover.
Would be interesting to collect any people's experience of Dog Tag though. Any comments welcome
Interesting thread. As a keen off-piste skier and a Leader for the Ski Club of Great Britain, I've been aware for sometime that the cover for off-piste skiing provided by many travel insurance companies is less than adequate in many cases. Given the hazardous nature of our beloved sport, for me quality of cover always wins over price and I always take out the executive cover policy offered by the Ski Club. Go here for more information: www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/insurance/skiinsurance.aspx
I'd be interested in hearing about other good options for off-piste though, so look forward to seeing more posts on this thread.
I have been trying to arrange my own insurance for this winter season and thought my experiences with Fogg Insurance may be of interest to others.
A friend recomended Fogg Insurance as being able to provide cover for seasonaires.
The front page of their website makes the following statement "If you are looking at Ski Insurance, we insure the British Ski Teams – from Alpine to Freestyle - so naturally, all our Winter Sports policies cover skiing Off Piste!"
This seemed promising so I asked them to forward me a copy of thier Repski policy wording which makes the following comment regarding off piste;
"Off piste skiing is included provided you act reasonably and do not ski in a closed or avalanche risk area. If not skiing with a guide or instructor, always check that the area is suitable for a skier at your level".
In line with the comments made by others here I didn't feel this was clear enough to decide whether I would be adequately insured, particulalry the point about not skiing in an avalanche risk area, so I contacted them asking to clarify thier off piste cover as follows;
I am very interested in taking out your insurance but would like to clarify your off piste cover and would be grateful if you could answer the following;
1 - Could you please define what you mean by an avalanche risk area
2 – Could you confirm that you cover skiing outside of the ski domain
3 – That you cover climbing on foot or skins to reach a run
4 – That you cover skiing on high-mountain or glaciated terrain
Rather than answering my queries Fogg reponded with the following;
"As per your attached queries on level of cover, I have spoken to the underwriters who would be unable to offer cover for your requests."
The search for my insurace for this winter continues!
I am however very concerned by this response; on a day out with a guide any intermediate skier on a week's holiday could concievably engage in numbers 2, 3 and 4 on my list, thinking that they were covered for off piste skiing having taken out a policy with an insurer who is positioning themself as a winter sports speicalist.
If anyone has been able to get a definition of "avalanche risk area" from Fogg please let me know.
My comments about off piste insurance are very personal, my son Sam Harber and his fried James Rourke were employed by VIP in Val who offered the boys their own insurance cover which include off piste knowing that they were off piste boarders, believing the company were looking after them as employees they took their offer up, usually the do their own insurance. On this particular day a massive avalanche occured killing them both (they both were equipped with avalanche packs they did not take any silly risks) thinking that they were covered, how wrong both families were. Fogg Travel get out clause was "that they put themselves in foreseeable danger" they were not with a ski guide, to cut a long story short, don't trust your insurance company they do not know anything about skiing/boarding and they will get out of paying out. The boys did not get a Carte Nege (sorry about the miss spelling) as they thought they were fully covered. Their employer let them down.
Unless you had a lot of money to fight the insurance companies its difficult to know what to do.
Hi Kris,
Thank you very much for your post and sorry that it took me so long to reply.
I know that revisiting this subject is emotional for you and we all appreciate your contribution to this discussion all the more because of what you and James’s family have been through personally.
As you know, I investigated the nature of the get out clause, "that they put themselves in foreseeable danger" with our technical advisor, avalanche expert Alain Duclos. Alain’s report was several years after you looked to appeal the insurance companies’ refusal to pay with Financial Ombudsman Service who then said that they would rejected your complaint because your son(s) had "courted risk".
Alain’s conclusion was very clear that the insurance companies’ conclusion is wrong (based on the logic in A & B below), but it seems as if it is too late to reopen the case. The worrying thing to me is that no real expert was consulted in this case until you asked me to look in to the situation three or four years later. I really don’t know why experts were not consulted in this case. Indeed, from reading yours and other people’s posts in this discussion, it seems clear that experts are not consulted when the policies are written up in the first place.
I would just like to add Alain’s expert opinion in your son’s case below - I think it should serve as a model precedent for all policies regarding off-piste skiing, or at least part of the policies regarding off-piste skiing. Alain serves as an expert witness on avalanche accident matters to the Savoie court in Chambery and Albertville – he is certified to do so and legal precedent has been set as a result of his opinions. Here is his opinion on the matter of Sam and James:
A. "Skiing and snowboarding off-piste on an avalanche risk/danger rating of 3 out of 5 is considered to be totally acceptable/reasonable by mountain professionals in France and more importantly, reasonable by the French legal system (numerous legal precedents in French courts attest to this fact). It was an avalanche danger rating of 3 out of 5 on the day of the accident ."
B. "According to the bulletin and the risk/danger rating on 21 April, 2005 (the day of the accident): in no way was an avalanche of “extraordinary size” predicted. The avalanche that killed the boys was of extraordinary size; such an avalanche was unpredictable according to the avalanche bulletin and the rating definition; it was the size of the avalanche that is responsible for the death of the boys; the cliffs were reached due to the extraordinary size of the avalanche; it was the fall over the cliffs that provoked the mutilation and trauma which was the cause of their death."
Since such a large avalanche was ‘unpredictable’, in fact not predicted, on this day, it was therefore 'unforeseeable', not 'foreseeable' as the insurance companies have concluded.
The findings of an avalanche expert certified as an expert witness by the French court system (the country where the accident happened), seems to have had no impact on this case where the insurance company refused to pay.
My heart goes out to you.
All my very best,
Henry
Hi Henry
I have read with interest all of the comments regarding "off piste" insurance and as you know was heavily involved with the Insurance ombudsman regarding the insurance companies failure to pay the recovery costs following the deaths of my Son James and his friend Sam over 5 years ago. Both incidently were seasonnaires so had considerable experience of off piste and indeed taking out insurance.
Firstly I agree with Henry that expert opinion would have made a great difference to this case and I am glad that you have highlighted the work of Alain Duclos.I would recommend people remember him as I am sure that his services will be required, as the Insurance industry has not made any effort to clarify the position regarding off piste insurance. In fact they have continued to come up with very inventive phrases to sell their policies to the off piste enthusiasts in the belief that they will have, on balance, very few claims to dispute and which could harm their reputation.
I agree with one of the previous people about Fogg insurance brokers who arranged the insurance for VIP, the company that my Son and his friend worked for. They showed that they have very little expert opinion in this area although they advertise as such particularly to the seasonnaires market. In fact the insurance companies and indeed the ombudsmans service also do not have the expertise which is why the various get out clauses are still in the policy wording and why the off piste insurance policies are vague.
I can not therefore emphasise highly enough that should anyone find themselves in the position that the myself and my wife as mother and father to James and Kris as Mother to Sam found themselves in is to take expert opinion and I am glad to say that this is available now and that legal precedent has been set, as mentioned by your self.
I would recommend asking the insurance broker or company to clarify , in writing , specifically what their off piste cover means before risking your lives, rather than dealing with it after the event as has been shown the insurance company can use so many clauses to prevent paying a claim.
Finally I hear that the Avalanche warning system used in France and Europe is to be become the internationally recognised system around the world. Well would it not be an idea to get the insurance companies to recognise this and symplify their policies so that they cover people off piste except when the risk factor is 3 out of 5 or more! There is enough evidence to show that most accidents occur at this level and I know that the insurance companies go by statistics.
All the best
Peter and Anne
Hi everyone,
We run a chalet company in the 3 Valleys and advising our clients on off piste insurance has always been a bit of a mine field. Two years ago I tried to tie down some of the insurances companies and underwriters on just one of their clever phrases with very unsatisfactory results and thought you might be interested.
I was keen to determine the exact meaning of the phrase seen on many many policies ‘off piste skiing is covered within the remit of the resort’. I asked a number of companies that state this, if they would give me a written explanation of what this phrase actually meant. Did it mean in between the pistes, the area covered by piste patrol etc etc. I asked them who decided what the ‘remit’ of the resort was in the event of a claim and so on. None of them could either tell me the answer to any of these questions and neither were they willing to put anything in writing to define exactly what the 'remit of the resort is.
Since then we have advised any of our clients that ski off piste from taking any of these policies. We use Carte Neige ourselves as we live in France full time – but it is not always suitable for non French residents as you can’t use your UK insurance in conjunction with it for repatriation in case of an accident with many insurers ( though Natwest sounds like an exception RogerC).
We point most of our clients in the direction of the Ski Club, the BMC and Snowcard, for whom we have had consistent good reports.
We really look forward to reading the findings of this research!
Emma
I have found that as they have there own repatriation in case of an accident as well as many other additional items, they are very good for any nationality if you are skiing in France. I have many more details available about insurance if people contact me.
I shall publish further details on
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=60076&start=160
should you wish to read more. The links for snowheads in the front of this article are very old. This is the newest link on the subject.
You are right Fat Dave; and it's not just in France where they say that it is never 100% safe. EVERY ski area in the world that posts the international danger ratings (1-5) will ever post a '0' rating when there is snow on the mountain. The reason is that such a rating, as constructed by the international snow and avalanche community, simply does not exist.
So to state that a policy will not cover you,"...where there is an avalanche warning in place", is as absurd as saying that a policy will cover you for swimming where there is no chance of drowning.
My husband and I are lucky enough to be insured through a company travel policy where the wording is very wide - it covers skiing off piste with or without a guide and also covers loss or damage to skis - some general policies do not cover sports equipment while in use. We have tested the wording twice; once when my husband was caught in an avalanche while in a teaching group and lost a ski, and once when I was blood-wagonned off a blue piste. Both times they paid up without a murmur, and didn't ask about the avalanche warning level in the first claim, which was probably 3.
But I have had depressing experiences trying to get insurance to cover the things we like to do for my sons, and have repeatedly come up against the ignorance of insurance companies. The clause often inserted about going against local advice is particularly badly thought through. I once remember a phone call when I asked what avalanche risk level they would consider constitutes a warning against skiing, whether skiing on/across a closed piste would be covered, what is their definition of a guide, and where one was supposed to get the local advice. Nobody knew the answers to these questions and nobody had thought through what the policy wording actually meant. I was left with the impression that it was just inserted as a get out clause to make sure they don't have to pay the claim if they don't want to.
I am really pleased that you are addressing this issue and look forward to reading more about it, particularly as my son, who lives in Singapore, needs to buy insurance to cover him for skiing in Japan, where there are big issues about skiing off piste and the cost of things going wrong is likely to be very expensive!
Many thanks for your good work,
Gillian
It would be great to collect your opinions, comments and experiences of off-piste insurance. this discussion trail will help us in discussing it with the insurers.
Please post you remarks here
I have twice been recovered from Val d'Isere courtesy of NatWest Bank, whose Travel Insurance comes as part of my credit card package. First time 1995 with partial rupture of the ACL on right knee (my rucksack got caught on the old Palafour chair lift), and in 2003 with some additional french steelwork in my right knee courtesy of the hospital and orthopods in Bourg St Maurice after breaking my tibial plateau on the North face of the Grand Vallon (ice, slush, bindings too tight, bad turn, etc). ... helicopter winch up and flight included :)
In both cases I had carre-neige insurance with the ski pass, and the response of NatWest's Insurers was without question, though they were slow to sort out the helicopter bill (around Euro 2000) in 2003 despite me sending them all the paperwork and explanatory letter including details of the carre-neige. In 1995 they flew out a driver to drive my car back to the UK while I went back first class with Swiss Air ... though in 2003 this luxurious travel had changed to '3 seats on Easy Jet'.
In both cases I was skiing with professional guides and had fully equipped backpack, medical kit etc. Which meant in both cases I could strap up my knee properly at the scene. The insurers never asked me for any details of this or of the guides I was skiing with.
One cautionary note though: I needed a 'rehab' knee brace for recovery from the 2003 accident (3 months on crutches), and although everyone (the insurance company, NHS, and BUPA) all agreed I needed a rehab brace none of them would pay for it. Since (a) the insurance company got me home, (b) NHS wouldn't because I was seeing a BUPA specialist, and (c) BUPA wouldn't pay because they did not do the operation. Hence I had to buy my own from a specialist shop: cost £200 (but I found it was tax deductible since it got me back to work quicker).
Happy ending: I was doing blacks again within a year (albeit with £600 of knee brace), and serious off piste again in the Val d'Isere National Park within two years.
Can you direct me to their policy terms and conditions? The policy seems interesting
As you say it seems that your were covered without question. Albeit once on piste and once off piste and with a guide (but they did not ask you about this?)
The policy comes with a NatWest 'Premier' account. They have a number of additional account levels graded as Advantage, Premier and Black - basically these depend on the amount of money you stick through your personal account (and their coffers). I don't have the details with me, but it has a very pragmatic dangerous sports' section, and the overall policy gets a very good rating. You can download it from their web site ... Nat West Advantage, and policy document at Policy Document. "Off-piste – skiing and snowboarding with a qualified instructor only. Cross-country skiing on locally recognised tracks only." Same kind of thing for SCUBA diving to 30 metres if you are diving within your qualifications and with another suitably qualified diver etc etc.
Hope that helps. Yep .. technically the first accident in '95 was on-piste, as we had just taken a taxi back to Tignes after doing the couloir known and 'Micky's Ears' with TJBaird (bow).
This is nothing new, although it may have got worse.
In previous seasons I have tried, in vain, to get clear statements from Insurers. They have always stated that you are not insured to ski off piste unless "the local authorities say it is safe to do so". As we know, in France at least, the official resort operator's line is that it is never 100% safe, hence the rating system descriptions.
Therefore the "insured to ski off piste" statement is just a marketing ploy. They know they have to have it to sell policies but they will, no doubt, use the former statement to avoid any pay-outs.
Further to my earlier response to your note about off piste insurance. Please take a look at this correspondance from 2008. Note the underwriters specifically said I would not be covered if there was an avalanche warning in place. I may be missing something but in the 6 season I have completed there was always an avalanche warning in place even if it was only level 1.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sent: Thu, 6 November, 2008 13:41:55
Subject: Travel insurance with optional winter sports cover
Dear Mr Smith
Further to your email enquiry please see the response from our Underwriter.
Kind Regards
Deborah
Customer Support
Email:info@atlasdirect.net
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Deborah,
Underwriters have confirmed the following:
Off-piste skiing (in areas designated safe by resort management) ie within local ski patrol guidelines is covered.
What isn’t covered:
Off-piste skiing/ snowboarding in areas designated as unsafe by resort management
Off-piste skiing/ snowboarding where there is an avalanche warning in place
What we don’t want people to do is self assess the avalanche risk but instead follow the local experts. If the slopes are deemed unsafe by ski patrol, they will be closed off to the public. While they may use the scale to rate the risk we will not use this to determine whether cover is in force or not.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
From: Dave Smith
To: info@atlasdirect.net
Sent: Friday, 31 October, 2008 17:09:26
Subject: Travel insurance with optional winter sports cover
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have just been using you web site to get a quote for travel insurance and would like to clarify some of the details of the optional winter sports cover:
1. Would I be covered, for costs incurred, if I needed to be "rescued" by the piste security services (e.g transport from the mountain to medical centre). I assume this is the case but cannot see it stated explicitly.
2. it also indicates that I would be covered for off piste skiing in areas "designated as safe by resort management", but not in areas "designated unsafe" or if "an avalanche warning is in place". I intend to travel to France where (as I am sure you are aware) they classify avalanche risk by the international scale from 1 to 5. None of these levels explicitly state whether, it is safe to ski off piste. Can you clarify in more detail when your policy would cover me for off piste skiing. For example does it cover off piste skiing for levels 1-3 but not 4 & 5?
Thanks you for your assistance
Yours faithfully,
D A Smith