Choosing The Correct Insurance Policy When Skiing Off Piste-The Insurance Minefield

bandit wrote:ise, my point was, that I can't tell which one has been on the staff for 10 years, from the one who arrived at the start of the season. Is it fair to ask them to make the call.

It matters not a jot, the insurer thinks that, in the round, any one of those people is more experienced than the average holiday maker.

bandit wrote: If it was me, I would say no to everything, to avoid being blamed.

So would I, I agree with the insurers, I've no way of knowing the competence level of the person asking. It's simply not worth it.

bandit wrote:It does not matter if I am experienced or not. For this example, the Policy says Harnesses are excluded, so no cover exists whilst either wearing one for safety, or carrying one for use if needed.

Likewise, it's okay to have Ski Crampons, but not Boot Crampons. They agreed to cover me whilst skiing the Vallee Blanche, and as I got stuffed for that by the Guides Co. I used, I never got to find out if my Insurer expected me to slither down the Arete to keep my Policy valid, by refusing the offer of Crampons from my Guide.

that all sounds perfectly reasonable, is Holiday Harry an experienced mountaineer and proficient in crevasse rescue or vertical rescue? If not them he's no business wearing a harness other then to impress the other muggles down Chamonix high street. Same with crampons quite clearly. Are you seriously telling me this a problem for you? Are you really about to go somewhere needing a climbing harness and crampons?

As for with a guide, it's fine, if a guide or leader instructs you to use some piece of gear the insurer will cover you. Why wouldn't they? They're only going to claim off the guides professional insurance. You can let them worry about what their remit is.

EmmaEvs wrote:Ise, I have taken the time to read some of your website/blog. You appear to be a mountaineer with excellent credentials, although it's not clear whether you ski (I assume you do as you're on this site). I don't think the example of your theoretical insurance company is helping too much at the moment. Your criticisms appear to be based on several assumptions, which I don't believe are entirely correct.

The point, which you're missing a little, is about the assumption that everyone buying an off the shelf insurance policy has the ability to judge when a situation is safe or not. This assumption is entirely incorrect and anyone that tries for a split second to claim otherwise is engaged in some major silliness.

EmmaEvs wrote:You clearly take your mountaineering seriously, therefore you must have a decent insurance policy which covers more than the average holiday hiker would need, and have, at some point been in a similar position to those who are looking for help here. Perhaps you could offer some constructive guidance to Bandit etc who are also simply looking for an insurance policy which is fit for their purpose?

My advice is to take the advice of your insurer. Not to engage in activities that you're not skilled enough for and to take the advice of someone that is qualified at all times.

ise wrote:

bandit wrote:ise, my point was, that I can't tell which one has been on the staff for 10 years, from the one who arrived at the start of the season. Is it fair to ask them to make the call.

It matters not a jot, the insurer thinks that, in the round, any one of those people is more experienced than the average holiday maker.

I've seen the photos of the aftermath of some of the decisions made by Ski Instructors over the years.

bandit wrote: If it was me, I would say no to everything, to avoid being blamed.

ise wrote:
So would I, I agree with the insurers, I've no way of knowing the competence level of the person asking. It's simply not worth it.

This is all very well, but why on earth do Insurers claim to offer off piste cover, when in fact their cover is pretty well zero. Folks just need to know where they stand. The Insurance Policies that say No Off Piste, are easier to read. What that does raise though is the definition of Off Piste. Marked, groomed, patrolled only, or marked ungroomed? If it's marked, groomed only, what happens if it snows and the resort leaves powder to play in. Is the Policy holder then meant to stay in their hotel?

Unfortunately, many say off piste skiing only with a Ski Instructor, so if you are with a Mountain Guide you have no cover. If it's not written in the policy, no cover.

ise wrote:
Same with crampons quite clearly. Are you seriously telling me this a problem for you? Are you really about to go somewhere needing a climbing harness and crampons?

They are just pieces of safety equipment. It seems strange that an Insurer would seek to encourage me to leave safety kit behind, via sanctions.

I have also been on the receiving end of the utterly dumb questions that Insurers ask when a claim is made. Have you? By the time I'd finished answering mine, I felt pretty certain that the Insurer knew absolutely nothing about winter sports of any sort.

The point, which you're missing a little, is about the assumption that everyone buying an off the shelf insurance policy has the ability to judge when a situation is safe or not. This assumption is entirely incorrect and anyone that tries for a split second to claim otherwise is engaged in some major silliness.

The point, which with respect I think you're missing a little, is that some people are capable of judging whether a situation is safe or not. I don't believe that anybody has suggested that "everyone buying an off the shelf insurance policy has the ability to judge when a situation is safe or not". Also bear in mind that not all off piste skiing takes place on virgin mountains with vertical descents and avalanche/crevasse potential. I'm sure you are aware there is a very wide spectrum, the lowest end of the scale being to ski across a small field, off piste but with worn paths due to being regularly used by skiers in order to get from one lift to another. This route (it is real) is taken by skiers of all levels, it only has sufficient decline to get someone from A to B. It's far less dangerous than a bog standard blue run, and yet would definitely be classed as off piste.

My advice is to take the advice of your insurer. Not to engage in activities that you're not skilled enough for and to take the advice of someone that is qualified at all times.

I couldn't agree more with these statements, although they don't actually help to identify an insurance policy which is fit for purpose. Unfortunately the advice of insurers is not always clear, and so we go back to why the thread was started. In terms of engaging in activities within skill levels, when I took an interest in this thread I thought - it's not up to me to judge somebody else's ability. Apart from anything else it's difficult to do that on a forum, and it's not the point of the discussion. I guess to get some progress on the topic the starting point is to assume that the individual looking for this cover is responsible and capable. I agree that not everybody will be but that's a different issue. For those that are, there must be insurance cover available somewhere, particularly as some companies specifically state that they do include off piste skiing in their policies. There's a clear intent there on the ins. co.'s part, so it's not an unrealistic expectation which has been dreamed up. The issue under discussion is skiers/boarders who want to be clear about what they're paying for and what they should expect in return. Then, if that does not match their needs, where to go to find a policy which does.

Emma, clarity, at last.

bandit wrote:
They are just pieces of safety equipment. It seems strange that an Insurer would seek to encourage me to leave safety kit behind, via sanctions.

do you personally climb using ice axes and crampons, roped up with a harness? do you personally own any of those items or have, apart from a couple of hours instruction or under supervision of a guide, actual practical experience in using them in a winter alpine environment?

why on earth should an insurer cover you to enter the mountains using equipment you're not experienced in the use of?

EmmaEvs wrote:
The point, which with respect I think you're missing a little, is that some people are capable of judging whether a situation is safe or not.

That's totally irrelevant, when an insurer sells a policy they're concerned about the majority of their policyholders. That a vanishingly small number might have some skills is neither here nor there.

EmmaEvs wrote: Also bear in mind that not all off piste skiing takes place on virgin mountains with vertical descents and avalanche/crevasse potential. I'm sure you are aware there is a very wide spectrum, the lowest end of the scale being to ski across a small field, off piste but with worn paths due to being regularly used by skiers in order to get from one lift to another. This route (it is real) is taken by skiers of all levels, it only has sufficient decline to get someone from A to B. It's far less dangerous than a bog standard blue run, and yet would definitely be classed as off piste.

bless :) that's quite sweet, thanks, you genuinely made me smile there :-)

We have a negative on that Dave Mac. Over and out. 8)