 Poster: A snowHead
|
Have always used Snowcard or MPI in the past but their rates seem to have gone up by 50% this year. May not be a lot in relation to overall trip cost, just annoying.
But SCGB seem to over the best value by far to cover off piste without a guide. Have I missed something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Quite a few ordinary insurers cover off piste without a guide, as long as you are within ski area boundaries.
eg, Eurotunnel (which you can buy whether you go through the tunnel or not) says:
'The following activities are covered if winter sports cover is shown on your confirmation or policy schedule issued by Eurotunnel Le Shuttle:
• Skiing, snowboarding, big-foot skiing, cross-country skiing, glacier skiing, mono-skiing, sledging, snow blading and tobogganing.
Off piste skiing is covered when you are skiing within the ski area boundaries of a recognised ski resort and following ski patrol guidelines.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@Posidrive, I just had a look/got a quote. Whilst the entry level is cheap, it gets expensive quickly with each activity pack. The lower levels have a lot of restrictions with regard to altitude (though it is not very clear to which activities they apply to) and mentions of "within ski resort and on marked paths/tracks". It wasn't clear to me if off-piste without a guide was altitude or terrain restricted, which (if any) pack would cover for ski touring without a guide, high-altitude ski touring, or where they draw the line between ski touring and ski mountaineering.
So whilst "off-piste without a guide" is included in the base premium price of 76 quid, I would want to clarify exactly what was included in that from a terrain, altitude, and resort boundary perspective.
I could not work out which pack would be required to go ski touring on my own even at low altitude, or for high altitude (above 3000m) off-piste skiing or ski touring. What was clear was that mountaineering above 4000m required activity pack 6 and an additional 260 pounds.
@koru, what are ski patrol guidelines?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
When I renewed in March with MPI on annual policy the increase was 22%.
Standard Family AMT for France only - Cancellation Cover and Personal Effects and Money Section cover deleted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Gämsbock wrote: |
| @koru, what are ski patrol guidelines? |
I took it to mean things like signs saying piste closed or don't ski past here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| koru wrote: |
| Gämsbock wrote: |
| @koru, what are ski patrol guidelines? |
I took it to mean things like signs saying piste closed or don't ski past here. |
I'd want to be confident that the insurance company shared my interpretation. The trouble is, the terminology doesn't really work for European resorts. I'm also not sure what "ski area boundaries" are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, the wording seems to have been written by someone more familiar with US resorts. But I'm not particularly recommending that policy. It was just the first example that came to hand, to show that some off piste is often covered by non-specialist policies. If you feel the wording is ambiguous for the skiing you intend to do, pick a different policy with clearer wording.
For instance, Insure & Go's budget policy wording is that it covers: "off piste skiing/snowboarding (except in areas considered to be unsafe by resort management)". I'm confident I would not ski anywhere that resort management has indicated as unsafe, so I would be happy with that. If you want to be covered to ski into the wilderness then, yes, you probably need to pay the extra for the likes of Snowcard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| koru wrote: |
| For instance, Insure & Go's budget policy wording is that it covers: "off piste skiing/snowboarding (except in areas considered to be unsafe by resort management)". I'm confident I would not ski anywhere that resort management has indicated as unsafe, so I would be happy with that. |
I think that is still ambiguous. By it's very nature off piste in Europe is not managed. There is information on the risk. There may be advisory signs but it's rarely black and white what is "unsafe". Having said that if I policy clearly covers off piste without a guide and have taken the trouble to state something like the above I take as a safeish bet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
It's interesting the I&G may now be OK for off piste but still offer no public liability for anything that occurs in a snow park and a higher medical excess for certain activities. You need to read all the small print to be sure that what you consider to be reasonable winter sports activities are actually covered, especially for those expensive accidents!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The 'altitude restrictions' are not really resort skiing applicable, they are for things like climbing, mountaineering and ski mountaineering. Standard packs covers pretty much anything a regular off piste loving skier would face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| koru wrote: |
| ... For instance, Insure & Go's budget policy wording is that it covers: "off piste skiing/snowboarding (except in areas considered to be unsafe by resort management)". I'm confident I would not ski anywhere that resort management has indicated as unsafe, so I would be happy with that. ... |
Not sure I know what "considered to be unsafe by resort management" means, because in Europe they generally don't mark off-piste in any way. It could be interpreted as meaning anywhere off-piste when the avalanche risk is greater than 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Quote: |
It could be interpreted as meaning anywhere off-piste when the avalanche risk is greater than 1
|
That's exactly what I was told when I interrogated Dog Tag on the subject. In fact they said that if there was any avalanche warning in place, off piste skiing would be considered as "against local advice". I pointed out - in vain - that there was always SOME level of avalanche risk warning. I gave up, after several attempts - could never get to speak to anyone who had a clue about European ski arrangements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ecureuil wrote: |
| koru wrote: |
| ... For instance, Insure & Go's budget policy wording is that it covers: "off piste skiing/snowboarding (except in areas considered to be unsafe by resort management)". I'm confident I would not ski anywhere that resort management has indicated as unsafe, so I would be happy with that. ... |
Not sure I know what "considered to be unsafe by resort management" means, because in Europe they generally don't mark off-piste in any way. |
Not exactly. The piste markers mark the piste. Anything else is off piste as discussed here
| ecureuil wrote: |
| It could be interpreted as meaning anywhere off-piste when the avalanche risk is greater than 1 |
This second part of the conundrum is less clear. The avalanche risk grading clearly doesn't make sense. As it has been pointed out there is always some risk and slopes are not uniform. So even with relatively high risk, it may be fine to ski some off piste slopes. MPI wrote an article which I can't find at the moment which discusses what might constitute unreasonable behaviour that may invalidate your policy. Hold on, I have just found something. Here is an extract:
| Quote: |
"In the event of an incident you may have to justify your decision to ski the run. That said, here is an extract from MPI’s policy:
‘...... your deliberate exposure to unnecessary danger, except in an attempt to save human life or whilst participating in an activity covered by this insurance’
[in this case skiing]." |
A lot of the article is about skiing closed runs but as the article says that makes it off piste and the statement above then applies, as it would do for off piste activity.
Make of that what you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
As with many things in life, there is an element of risk. Insurers expect that you don't act recklessly. In order to avoid a claim they would have to show that:
(i) guidance was readily available that
a. you should not go off-piste
Or
b. you should not have gone into an area in which you travelled
(ii) and that you ignored the guidance;
A person acts recklessly with respect to:
(i) a circumstance when he is aware that a risk exists or will exist;
(ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur;
and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.
Tests of reasonableness therefore apply. A reasonable person: This hypothetical person exercises average care, skill, and judgement in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests.
So here, a person is reckless if they fail to exercise average care, skill, and judgement in protecting their own and others' safety when he or she knows that a risk exists or will exist or occur.
It is therefore important that you take guidance from the Avalanche Bulletin, assess the Danger Level, the avalanche-prone locations and the additional loads and make a reasonable judgement.
That's likely to be the basis of the legal approach in a case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
