Hi, first post but it is insurance renewal time again.

There seems to be a bit of a kerfuffle about off piste ski insurance. I got this message from

http://www.henrysavalanchetalk.com/piste-insurance-caveats-and-get-out-clauses

I read through the forums but it seems very confusing, anyone care to shed some light on what the situation is here as I guess most pistehors readers are directly concerned by this. As far as I can see British insurance apart from specialists have always been a bit reluctant about people going off piste without a guide/instructor/ but the terminology seems more orientated to skiing in the US with the idea of outbounds/inbounds. I read Snowcrazy’s FB page and he has a good point about the weasel words they use but I wonder what happens in practice?

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=134900026541300&topic=150

Sorry I’m a bit ski insuranced out at the moment having tried to bring a bit of sanity to other forums but everyone is encamped in their positions. I guess people can read the information and form their own opinion.

I don’t really think much has changed since I prepared this article (with the help of an insurance lawyer)

http://pistehors.com/backcountry/wiki/Articles/Off-Piste-Insurance

UK companies do seem to put a lot of get out clauses into their policies and will make use of them in some cases

http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/mountain-of-debt-for-tignes-avalanche-families/

A lot of UK policies are underwritten by Union Reiserversicherung AG who say that off piste skiing is covered provided you act reasonably and do not ski in closed or avalanche risk areas. Well runs are often closed specifically due to avalanche risk so really should be avoided. For the rest I assume they are saying “read the avalanche bulletin, don’t ski on slope aspects etc mentioned in the bulletin”. Personally I think if you applied Munter or a similar accepted risk reduction method and it gives you a green light the insurance company would have difficulty refusing a claim even with the above “weasel words”. But I’m just speculating.

just renewed for my 2nd year of BMC alpine cover.
covers me for off-piste/touring (almost) as simple as that and for my mountain biking wherever i may be in europe.

expensive, but for peace of mind for me and my family its something i’ll pay for as a seasonaire.

whats your french cover Davidof? and any ideas on how the swiss are?

OliC - 05 November 2010 12:09 AM

and any ideas on how the swiss are?

The two main top-ups here are REGA or Air Glaciers. They’re very cheap on their own but they’re complimentary products aimed at a Swiss market. That basically means customers will also have statutory health insurance and civil responsibility cover. The cover is also reduced for non-Swiss residents, for those resident here the recover/repatriation cover is global, for non-resident it’s Switzerland only.  I would be pretty uncomfortable recommending them to anyone not in Switzerland and anyone that can’t read the T&C’s in French/German/Italian absolutely must not take them.

It’s what I use for personal stuff, I’ve some professional cover for other activities here and in other countries and if I work for someone else I’m often covered by their policies. It looks cheap but in reality it isn’t if you take the full cost base, so I have to add the couple of thousand francs per annum my private health cover costs and then the lost baggage policies I take for various trips.

Switzerland has a lot of laws regarding mountains, obviously as the country is full of them, so the cover you get from REGA or AG operates in that framework so if you’re reckless you can find you’re not covered and possibly facing other legal action. Like the BMC policy it’s not too onerous, you’re just expected to behave responsibly and respect any warnings, professional/local advice and so on.

I also have BMC insurance, but when I checked if I was covered for a trip to the Georgian Caucasus (ski touring and a winter ascent of Mount Kazbek ) found that I wasn’t covered as the Home Office wouldn’t recommend travel there. It was then I discovered The Austrian Alpine Club. With membership (only £41!) comes insurance which is ONLY rescue insurance, but seems incredibly good value. There are exclusions, over 6000m peaks, professionals, racing etc, but it may prove a useful/more cost effective option. They have a uk branch claiming to be the largest mountaineering club in the UK.

Read carefully the terms of insurance as to whether it’s for you and don’t forget you will need additional insurance for travel, lost luggage etc.

http://www.aacuk.org.uk

dazzler - 05 November 2010 12:58 PM

I also have BMC insurance, but when I checked if I was covered for a trip to the Georgian Caucasus (ski touring and a winter ascent of Mount Kazbek ) found that I wasn’t covered as the Home Office wouldn’t recommend travel there.

yeah my bro has them and he’s off to India in Jan to sport climb.  they dont recomend going to india so its something he needs to check.  i dont see him much, just passings here and there so not mentioned it to him yet.

OliC - 05 November 2010 12:09 AM

whats your french cover Davidof? and any ideas on how the swiss are?

As I lead club groups I’m a French Mountaineering Federation (FFME) member and use their insurance. The FFME is part of the French Sports Ministry. The insurance only covers the S&R side of things and third party liability if we get sued. It specifically excludes piste skiing. For anything hospital related I’m in the French health system and have a complementary private insurance referred to as a “mutuel” (as in Mutual Insurance). Practically everyone has a Mutuel in France as the state health service doesn’t cover everything. Because I work in Switzerland my Mutuel also covers any treatment there. I have no idea about any other country though but the only other places I’ve been in the last 5 years is Italy and America.

The FFME covered my repatriation home (by ambulance) when I had a fall in a couloir in the Ecrins a few years ago with no worries. Mondial were the assistance company. Basically it is a similar deal to the Austrian Alpine Club mentioned by Dazzler above. There don’t appear to be any exclusions in the policy. My fall of over 300 meters in a steep couloir made the papers and if a UK insurance company had read the story they probably would not have been too happy; it certainly would not have been considered reasonable.

Hi

Sorry for not replying earlier, I couldn’t remember my password for this site or may email! I was originally going for the carte neige but the Austrian Alpine Club looks like the more interesting deal. I say this because I already have a credit card with gives me holiday insurance as long as I book tickets etc using the card. However I’m now reading lots of stuff about how you are covered up to risk 3 with risk 4 - 5 not covered and I wonder about the implications of all this.

The thing that worries me a bit with that is that if your CC company doesn’t cover off-piste or covers it with some exclusions then they won’t pick up any incidental expenses you have between what the EHIC provides in the country where you are skiing and what your other insurance covers.

I’ve noticed on the forums that people are wanting to know what risk level they will be covered at on the 5 level scale but I doubt they will ever get such a clear cut answer as even risk 2 implies some danger of avalanche and possible exclusion under the “weasel words”.

I’ve seen some comments, which I think are misleading, saying you are ok at risk 3 but cannot ski at risk 4. I’ve got the latest wording of the American 5 level avalanche scale in front of me which says that for risk 3 “skier triggered avalanches are likely” and for risk 4 “skier triggered avalanches are highly likely”. Note the Scots use the words “possible” and “probable” but we are not just talking about skiing in Europe, are we?

http://www.sais.gov.uk/hazard-scale.asp

There is not much difference between the two levels. If you take the 5 level scale then risk level 5 is principally aimed at civil planners and concerns risk to infrastructure so for skiers we are interested in risk levels 1-4 (that doesn’t meant that you can’t ski safely at risk level 5 but it would be on nordic style terrain). So risk 3 is already in the upper section of the scale and should be viewed as a significant risk of skier triggered avalanches. The principal difference between 3 and 4 are the size of avalanches and the slope where they occur.

This news story could also have future implications for ski insurance

http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0995-swiss-prosecution-could-impact-off-piste-skiing/

if the insurance company also has to be liable for any collateral damage that you may cause, certainly finding 50-100kCHF for a rescue operation is a major sum.

Now I have just read this entire thread and find all the comments here to be very reasonable. Why it was needed to make ill informed comments about the research into off piste insurance that has been done on my facebook page I do not understand David and Ise.

I agree with you about the Swiss local cover, when there I use that. I also think the Austrian Alpine Club insurance is very good and at one time when climbing in my younger days in the Alps I had this and also at another time the BMC policy. Both were very good for ski touring, climbing, mountaineering even in the Himalayas on expeditions.

But here in Europe these days I prefer to use Carte Neige in France which is excellent. But all these are best to have with additional private insurance.

Regarding the British policies, some underwriters have now given much better descriptions of what they mean, but still use there ‘opt out words or clauses’. To be expected I would guess. These details can be seen on my facebook group page.

However the most interesting thing for me in all this is regarding equipment and what is and is not expected. Again some companies are now being more specific, but not all.  David, Ise, would either of you ski off piste without taking your kit with you. Even snowshoeing last season resulted in a number of deaths.

David, you like doing difficult things and have fallen. Nothing wrong with that, we all like a challenge. It does not mean we should not be covered if we know what we are doing and are willing to take the risks. I am very interested to read your response if any. 

Hi Snowcrazy,

You are seen as something of an authority figure on Snowheads and J2Ski. You have an “encyclopedic” knowledge of the Paradiski area. People hang on your every word, so although what you say may be understandable to experienced skiers, the forums have a lot of people who are just dabbling in off piste. A case being the focus on the overall avalanche risk figure. Am I good to go at risk 3 or 4 etc. It is important for people to be clear that risk 3 is still a high end risk level and that insurance companies would be quite right to refuse to pay out at this level under certain circumstances. We saw with the Tignes avalanche back in 2005 (risk level 3) that the insurance companies will look quite closely at any large claim. As you have pointed out, the recent Swiss case would be just the kind of thing to get the insurers re-reading their own small print and the expert reports.

I note that you were suggesting the combination of EHIC and CN, when we saw that CN does not provide cover for non-sporting injuries. When I worked for a TO a long time ago there were as many injuries from people falling around the town than on skis. Some really nasty stuff like a woman who broke her hip walking from the tour bus to the hotel on arrival day.

Hi David. Thank you for your reasonable response to my post.

I agree with you, level 3 and level 4 are both high risk areas. Level 5 really does not apply as my experience of that level has only been when the whole resort has been closed down and I would not consider going out in areas with any chance of a slide personally in those conditions.

Regarding the wording and what has been posted. Part of this exercise was to bring to peoples attention the way different wording is used by companies rather than sticking to the standard descriptions for each level. A number of companies have confirmed that they are looking at how this can be brought more in line with official wording. If nothing else, this is a good result. Whether they would have done this anyway, I do not know and it really does not matter.

The other very positive thing that I feel has come out of this discussion is that for those people, and we both know there are many, that do not carry arvi kit with them off piste or know where they are skiing, this has made them more aware of the risks they are taking. I hope so anyway and from the feedback I have had, I think that is a correct assumption.

If providing the details we have done has made people sit up and think about where they ski, how they ski and what kit they take with them, then this has been a worthwhile exercise and one I shall continue with until all those that have been contacted by others have shared what they wish too.

The information coming from resorts regarding this subject has also proved very interesting. There concerns over unpaid rescue bills and avalanche protection above or near to pistes also has legal concerns as the recent case in Switzerland has shown.

I shall take on board your first comment re. the average skier that might be reading this and make clear the risks at all levels. A fair point indeed.

Regarding the CN and EHIC. I have always been very specific that I have been talking about ski rescue and medical treatment. I have also said I use personal health cover on top of this for other things when away, but I take your point and will be sure to make clear that I agree with you, a person must have cover for none ski related injuries, travel etc.