The rescue operation that saved a young man after 17 hours under an avalanche in Switzerland at the weekend may have cost 50,000 CHF according to experts. This is to cover two rescue helicopters (1.25 CHF per second per aircraft), the rescue teams and hospital treatment. According to the SUVA, which manages the majority of professional insurance in Switzerland, on average an off piste rescue costs ten times one on piste.

The accident occured at risk 3, the skiers was alone and did not have a Recco or Avalanche Beacon which would have sped up the rescue operation. The SUVA says that in such cases the Insurers would only pay out half the costs. The victim Cédric Genoud is still a student so his bills would be covered in part by his medical assurance but this is limited to 50% of the rescue with a limit of 5KCHF leaving Cédric with a possible bill of 45KCHF assuming he has not specialist off piste cover. Even if he has they may refuse to cover the young freerider if he commited a serious error.

http://www.lematin.ch/actu/suisse/avalanche-evolene-paiera-facture-234362
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/0982-alive-after-17-hours-under-an-avalanche/

I’ve seen the same issue in cycling in the UK. Although it’s not a legal requirement to wear a helmet, insurance payouts are typically halved if you werent wearing one.
For this reason alone it makes sense to always carry all the right avy gear, as I can see insurance companies increasingly cutting or refusing cover if you don’t.
I can also imagine them increasingly balking at paying out for avy risk levels above, or maybe even at, 3.

If the insurance bills keep going up, we end up paying. While I’m not in favour of the legislation being looked at by the Italians, surely we have to prove a level of responsibility ourselves. Skiing without the right equipment leaves us open for much criticsm. Though I doubt the guy in this case could have done much to help himself, it is possible he would have been found quicker and he could have saved himself a very cold night out. It would also have saved all those ‘ill prepared/ irresponsible comments’ which no doubt will be thrown around. It’s often a case of perseption and we need to do our bit for everyone if not just ourselves.

Niall wrote:

‘I’ve seen the same issue in cycling in the UK. Although it’s not a legal requirement to wear a helmet, insurance payouts are typically halved if you werent wearing one.’

Can you point to any examples of this actually happening? I know that the CTC - the cyclists organisation in the UK - has successfully obtained full compensation for it’s members when insurance companies have tried this on one. Even the recent legal ruling that compensation might be reduced if a cyclist was not wearing a helmet was not all it seemed, as it left the onus on the insurance company to prove that the wearing of a helmet would have made a difference. However, in most cases something designed to absorb a minor impact (i.e. not exceeding 90 Joules, the design criteria for certification) offers about as much protection as chocolate fireguard in a crash involving a motor vehicle where the impact forces are way, way higher than this, and so whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not is something of an irrelevance. (Even in low speed crashes where no motor vehicle is involved most modern helmets simply suffer a brittle fracture and fall to bits, failing to absorb even the measly 90 Joules they are supposed to).

Somehow I can’t see a similar principle being applied across the board as some would like to apply to skiiers and cyclists. Just imagine the outcry if compensation to a driver, injured due to the actions of another motorist, was reduced on the basis that the driver was in a car that had less than the full five ENCAP points! Whatever next? Treating driving a classic car as being as reckless as skiing in level 5 avalanche risk perhaps!