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

ise, actually, I don't climb but do own, if that makes sense, though really that's rather irrelevant, as this is a much bigger problem than my kit choices, or the company I keep in the mountains.

If it helps you to understand why folks are unhappy with the woolly language used by mainstream insurers, here is an example from my last summer.

I felt it necessary to contact my insurer to clarify that I would not invalidate my policy cover whilst hiking, by using fixed, ropes, chains or ladders attached to paths, as they don't cover Via Ferrata. They contacted their Underwriter, and wrote to me with clarification.

bandit wrote:ise, actually, I don't climb but do own, if that makes sense, though really that's rather irrelevant, as this is a much bigger problem than my kit choices, or the company I keep in the mountains.

It's totally relevant. It's the whole point. Keep in mind, I didn't bring up such exotica as climbing harnesses and crampons.

Let's try a simple quiz, no conferring, no looking at Google, no reading a book. No need to post the answers, just try and be honest with yourself.

1. Do you own all of the following :

- an ice axe, shorter than 70cm and without a wooden shaft.
- front pointing crampons
- an alpine harness
- a rope
- ice screws, assorted anchors
- various tat, prusik loops, tapes, a handful of carabiners etc

2. Can tie all of the following knots and know what to use them for :

- italian hitch
- overhand knot
- clove hitch
- Klemheist knot
- French Prusik
- alpine butterfly

3. do you know what a z pulley system is and can you rig one on your own?

4. Can you read, without having to consult a book, this chart? (glasses are fine, I can't read it without)



5. Do you know what a Rutschblock Test is and can you do one?

6. Do you know what a shovel shear test is and can you do one?

7. Do you know what a compression test is and can you do one?

8. Do you have a first aid kit and have you got first aid training and can treat trauma far from help?

9. Can you, or more to the point have you ever, climbed on mixed ground at PD grade or above?

10. Can you micro navigate in zero visibility with no visual markers?

The passing grade is 100%, it's got to be off the top of head, the knowledge and skill you carry around with you all the time. I can check the answers but I'd need video of the rigging, ropework and so on. At this point anyone that didn't get 100% really ought to stop claiming they're supposed to be insured to go where they like carrying climbing gear.

Iif you haven't answered 100% can you explain why your insurer is supposed to accept the risk of you heading off into the mountains with all that gear?

If I were the winch guy on Air Ise who've just picked you up can you explain to me what the hell you were doing with your harness and crampons before you had your accident?

On our flight we'll be stopping back at the ski area where a few hundred policy holders at the same company are curious why you think their premiums are financing you using kit you don't understand in an environment so serious. My guess is that they are not very happy.

Emma's pointed out some people have some skill in this area, that's a fair comment, but let's be clear there's really rather more to it than having a transceiver and knowing how to use it which is why I didn't put in the 10 questions. At the level that bandit has now raised it to we're into full on ski mountaineering.

bandit wrote:I felt it necessary to contact my insurer to clarify that I would not invalidate my policy cover whilst hiking, by using fixed, ropes, chains or ladders attached to paths, as they don't cover Via Ferrata. They contacted their Underwriter, and wrote to me with clarification

Over on J2hike we can do whether I'd insure you for fixed gear in T5 environments either, but in short the answer's no, I wouldn't without adequate supervision.

What ticks me off is that an infinitesimal minority of skiers think they represent everyone else and their off piste cover is some matter of great concern to the overwhelming majority. They're right but entirely wrong about why, the majority should be worried if their insurer has priced policies to reflect the expensive risks of this minority who want to head off entirely on their cognizance and take risk for which they've not training or background.

Your insurer only want people to take suitable advice from a professional and follow it, it's not unreasonable. The only reason a tiny number have a problem with it is they know what the advice will be and don't want to follow it.

Ise,
What an interesting list! The only thing I can do in the whole list is a clove hitch :lol:

I do not intend to even ski down the side of the piste without an instructor. I well remember your horrible story about an avalanche only yards from the edge of the piste, and the threads about all the equipment and training one needs to ski off piste.

But I must say, like Bandit I do find insurers very annoying. We pay a lot of money to insure our business assets and for things like employers liability, and every year they send me masses of paperwork with lots of very small print and I really don't understand it all. They never seem to do anything commonsense like give a short summary of what it actually means.

I suppose one way to deal with them would be to write a letter explaining exactly what one intends to do on the ski slopes and ask them if this is covered by their policy.

Ally

AllyG wrote:Ise,
What an interesting list! The only thing I can do in the whole list is a clove hitch :lol:

In that case you can tie an italian hitch as well and everyone can tied an overhand knot. You can go a long way with just those three knots as it happens.

The point is, extreme though the list is, that's the terrain we're into as soon as we're talking about harnesses and crampons.

The vast majority, 99.99% of skiers, aren't playing that game at all. You have to understand an insurer has every right to be really alarmed that they have more and more clients skiing off piste without a clear idea of the risk they're in. I see people day-in, day-out with loads of gear and lots of talk in places where they've totally failed to understand the risk they're in. And that goes for the summer a lot as well as it happens.

Insurers, having taken hits elsewhere, realise they're simply not able to cover that risk. It's not like 20 years ago where the majority of people didn't ski off piste at all, nowadays people aspire to do it, driven by apparent examples on ski forums or better gear and so on. The insurer, or underwriter, need to protect themselves from the sort of claims that arise which could potentially be huge.

The cost of a policy that would, on paper, cover someone with a dozen weeks skiing experience and no mountaineering experience or winter safety training to climb 500m out of the ski area and make a descent of a 1000m on 30 degree slopes in risk 3 would be astronomical. It's utterly ridiculous to expect any holiday insurer to take on that risk.

If the mainstream insurers decline to cover people for this then you might think some specialists will spring up. My guess is they won't though, it's hard to put an estimate on the potential claims, you need to be charging huge premiums and I don't imagine it's a large enough market genuinely to spread the risk. Beyond that you'd start giving people an exam, like my 10 questions, but I can't imagine there's real appetite for that even if clients wanted to do it, you'd struggle to find people to run it without being indemnified against future loss should one of your pupils get caught out and come after you legally, other people may feel differently but you'll note it doesn't exist.

In fact, you'd expect if you did have some recognised skills your premiums would be less not more of course.

Those people who think they've found a wheeze using some of the foreign insurers might need to look at it again, legal responsibility is a little different in Europe. If you have an accident and it's your fault because you embarked on an activity you'd not got the skill to do then it'll be considered negligent and not only will the insurer not pay out you can find yourself facing legal action. They should be particularly aware that the insurer will hold them to a pretty high standard for their skills as will a court, you'll not convince either you're competent without years of experience and some expert testimony.

And no, I don't have a UK travel insurance policy, but I spend a lot of time with people who do and I'm more than a bit familiar with the industry.

Ise:

At this point the directors of my imaginary insurer are in stitches, we've taken this type of feedback to our AGM and along with the dafter claims & we're looking at putting it in a humorous book.

Interesting sense of humour.

You know exactly the difference between the US and Europe and exactly how the rules would apply.

That's the point. It's not clear.

You know the policy covers you in Europe for open pistes and freeride areas whether they're prepared or not and you know that depends on if the resort authorities have declared them open.

How would you define 'freeride area'? What the hell is 'freeride'? Isn't all skiing freeride?

You know exactly, precisely to millimetre when you step out of the terrain covered into what isn't.

To the millimetre? What pistes have you been skiing lately. Does that include ski routes?

In North America you know exactly how the rules work as well, in-bound, secured areas regardless of if they're prepared are covered and you know to the 100th of an inch the exact moment you leave that terrain.

In-bounds secured areas? What exactly does that mean? I can think of several places that might be considered in-bounds and secured, but I bet they would not be covered on a standard policy. Delirium dive? Corbet's couloir? Silverado?

So, anywhere within two metres of any piste is totally safe and should be covered on every insurance policy?

Where did I make that point? Of course not.

Two of our actuaries just collapsed after hysterical fits and needed to be hospitalised.

I hope you're hospitalized actuaries didn't accidentally ski off the side of the piste as they were collapsing.

Again you know perfectly well that's not true. And I know what the reply is, you're saying you can tell the difference, maybe you can, what you're not able to explain is how the insurer knows it's you and not Holiday Harry with a new pair of fat skis and no clue.

What is your point? Cast your mind back to when you were a 'holiday harry' (whatever contemptuous phrase that is for 95% of people who love this sport), did you really understand the difference between on and off piste?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that standard policies are perfectly clear to the holiday skier? Are you arguing that the holiday skier is clueless so it doesn't matter anyway? It's not clear to me. Are you involved in writing ski insurance policies?

I would probably fit your 'Holiday Harry' profile. I know my level of skill or lack thereof. It's exactly the 'Holiday Harry' skier that would benefit from clearer policies, as it is this type of skier that is most likely to push themselves into ambiguous, but controlled terrain, increasingly being offered by resorts. Especially those in North America.

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.

Your insurer is responsible for whatever is in their policy, nothing more. Which is the reason why, from a skiers point of view, it helps to have a clearly defined policy. The phrase "take the advice of someone that is qualified at all times." is the sort of wording you might find in some of the more ridiculous policies available.

At the end of the day it's the buyers choice. Insurance companies are a business. They will provide what people are willing to buy and what they can make money from.

I think this thread has run its course for now and am icing it.

This is a subject that requires greater clarity from the insurers, without doubt.

Bandit's original post highlighted a policy that supposedly covers off-piste skiing but not when "skiing in any level of avalanche warning". That's clearly nonsense.

All we want, as recreational skiers, is to know - clearly - what we're insured for with a particular policy, and what's excluded.

I suggest further developments in the enquiries being made elsewhere are reported in new threads, and I will reconsider re-opening this one once folk have cooled off a little.