[Closed] Ski Insurance - Who to use?

Used DogTag and Snowcard in the past. Snowcard were cheaper last time but still seem to have gone up lots in the last few years.

Can you upgrade your bank account for a month? Many extra/added value accounts include travel insurance which includes a few weeks skiing per year. We have done this in the past works out quite cheap. Although you have to give the money to a bank which is never easy. Plus if you are going to be of in the backcountry you will of course need to have a decent policy.

I went with Insure and Go, as they cover all the sports I need on an annual policy. Worth looking closely, as some "sports" insurance included such lunacy as covering you for wakeboarding. Well, covering you as long as you didn't get your head wet, that is! Small print silliness.

Currently looking at MPI, which looks the most reasonably priced and covers off piste without any really mad exclusions.

Columbus covers off piste in bounds.

I just used skicover which was £20 for their basic policy just to cover off piste.
Use first direct annual policy for skiing but it lacks in off piste cover. Figured I could use first direct if anything went wrong as they'd be really good normally and just use the skicover policy if I had to get rescued off piste. No idea if it would be any good for £20 though, but they were the cheapest I found.

Didn't matter anyway, off piste was off the cards all week... 14 people killed in avalanches in the week I was in Switzerland.. :-/

I've just signed up with direct travel, they had the least amount of clauses/exclusions in the policy. I called them as it's a year family policy that includes competitive cover (just In case). DogTag by comparison were about 150 more!

Beware of the Off Piste only with qualified guides clause !!!

Beware of getting the cheapest insurance, the service can be below what you would expect...

Snowcard every time now as they generally get good reviews.

I went with Insure and Go, as they cover all the sports I need on an annual policy.

Just to add to this...an insurance policy is only worth anything if they pay out when you need them to. I had a pretty big claim with Insure&Go a while back including rescue costs, costly medical treatment and then additional costs related to getting me home. They paid without any issue at all and actually went above and beyond what I was expecting (they arranged for taxis to pick me up in London rather than having to get tube etc, they were proactive in sorting things out for me and incurred additional costs that I hadn't even thought of).

Everyone seems to have a different experience when it comes to insurers, but I was impressed with them, particularly given how cheap they were!

I've rang insure & go.

Worked out cheaper than the others, however their policy wording is very ambiguous. You are covered off piste so long as the resort manager says it is safe to do so. Well they never say it's safe or not safe, it's just a risk. So does that actually mean you are insured with an avalanche risk of 5, or the opposite you are not insured if the risk is 2

I emailed Insure & Go as I had read some dubious stuff about their off piste cover...

Question: Resorts rate the off piste as a risk 1-5, I have not ever heard of a 'resort manager' declaring an area unsafe to ski. However I have been in areas where the resort has been closed due to avalanche risk. Are you saying that you are insured unless the resort is closed?

Response

Cover will only apply as long as the resort management has not declared the area you are skiing in to be unsafe

Question: Does your policy include search and rescue costs?

Response

In the event that you require rescue/assistance but you are not able to provide your location and it is necessary for the emergency services to search for you, we are unable to cover the costs involved; however, if your location is known and the emergency services can reach you without the need to search, we will provide cover under Section B – Medical and Other Expenses.

😯

So I interpret that they in fact do not provide off piste ski insurance, or indeed on piste if your mate says your up the hill. Not going to go near them I dont think

Re the resort manager...a someone who spends a lot of time trying to find objective ways to measure things, they're probably spent a bit of time trying to work out a general yardstick of when it would be foolish for skiiers to be on a mountain. The resort manager is most likely the best they came up with. The fact you've never heard of a resort manager might be a good thing. If there isn't one, then it would be impossible for "him" to say the area is unsafe, therefore the exclusion would never bite.

As for the second part, I think they're trying to protect themselves against potentially eye watering search and rescue costs.

If you have an accident off piste and you know your rough location so that a chopper can locate you quickly (for example, where you started and where you were aiming for) then that's a fairly predictable and manageable cost.

However, if you phone mountain rescue and when they say "where are you" and you say "i've no idea mate, but I'm staying in a hotel in Val Thorens is that helps", then you're looking at having one or more choppers in the air for hours looking all over the whole ski area trying to find some fool who decided to venture off piste but has absolutely no idea where he is.

I would say that if you venture off piste, it's your obligation to keep track of your approximate location.

Peterfile - that would be a reasonable interpretation, but thats one heck of an assumption when it comes to the cost of being rescued. What happens if you are caught in an avalanche, and are buried?

Even with a transceiver they have to search to find you....

To be fair, the policy looks reasonably good for on piste, so will probably book Mrs FD and Jnr FD with them, and go with snow card for myself

Yeah I get what you are saying and I can see the same gap that you can, but I would be surprised if they tried to rely on that exclusion when it was physically impossible for you to give you location since you were entombed in snow.

IMO (with my lawyer hat on) they've been burned in the past with huge search costs when a couple of numpties decided to venture off piste without a care in the world and got lost because they truly didn't know what they were doing or where they were going, unable to give even the vaguest starting point or direction to help mountain rescue. That clause is a knee jerk reaction to try to avoid those situations in future - make the insured take the heat if it was effectively their fault that they needed searched for.

Given the nature of helicopter search, if you can provide a start point, how long you've been travelling for and rough direction (or proposed end point), then that's sufficient "location" for a team in the air. That's what I'd argue if the need arose

Further confirmation... Maybe of the search bit, anyone understand what they are saying?

We can confirm that the search part of a rescue are costs charged by a government, regulated authority or private organisation connected with finding and rescuing an individual. This is something that we do not provide cover for within our policy terms and conditions, however we do include cover for rescuing an individual.

I recommended them before for Summer bike insurance, but apply equally to winter mountain sports. Check out the German Alpine Club. Give someone a ring and I am 100% sure they will be able to speak English and advice you. Full annual cover for around 60 euros for all mountain activities.

The final and clearest comment from them. Personally that means I would not consider using them for summer use in the alps either whether that be walking or mountain biking.

We can confirm that our policies do not cover Search and Rescue costs, however this does not include the cost of medical evacuation (by the most appropriate transport) from a medical emergency.

Basically if you do not need medical intervention you have to pick up your rescue costs, which could stretch in to the £10,000's

Its the same point really dunc...they're not covering the cost of choppers for people who are lost or tired.

Im struggling to see why you'd need rescue from a chopper for non medical reasons when skiing, walking or mountain biking. Unless of course you're lost, or tired 🙂

If your concern is around whether treatment is actually needed, ie the fact that you genuinely thought you were having a heart attack, but it turns out you were not, would be difficult for the insurer to not pay unless you were clearly trying it on.

OK, a slight play on an example of what happened a few years back to a couple of mates

2 blokes go off piste, competent skiers etc etc. through their error they ended up skiing in to the wrong valley. By the time they realise they think sod it just ski down and taxi back.

They ski down and their mobiles have no reception, so they can't get a taxi. So they have to walk out to the first village. Taxi journey takes 2hrs back to chalet. They don't get back until 10pm

So in theory we should have raised the alarm, at which the local search and rescue would have been sent out. Here you would end up paying the bill.

What about biking in the summer. Bike snaps, 5km in to a 20km remote trail, no mobile reception.

Or buried in an avalanche. Even if you go to hospital for a check up you haven't injured yourself.

Who did you go with in the end? Looking for similar policy with mixed levels - me off piste (guided, hiking etc not just side piste), Mrs piste and a 2 year old sledging in resort!
Snowcard comes down a lot if we whack the extras down, most of which is already covered on home insurance (baggage, tech etc).

Been using travelinsurance.co.uk for a few years. Basically InsureAndGo with a better deal, at least was at the time. For worldwide anyway.

Off piste generally comes down to really off piste, as in out of boundary, or within boundary but not a pisted run (usually allowed fine, unless it's marked closed etc).

In Europe it limits you a bit more as resorts tend to limit the boundary, ban you from having fun between trees etc. In North America the patrolled and marked boundary often covers a large area that's not pisted. I just call it powder (except in Europe where powder is rare. Usually it's crud and not nice, so you're forced to stick to groomed pistes anyway).

Though I keep looking to go with Snow Card to cover MTB also, but the cost is much higher for annual worldwide, and MTB so far is only one trip to the Alps in the summer, so I've just done that on an one off trip basis with them. TravelInsurance does cover MTB but is a bit vague about the terrain. It excludes DH 'racing', which is okay so long as I don't do The Mega, but also excludes "extreme ground conditions" which some say they have been told is anything other than tarmac.

And yes, for possessions I generally cover that with house insurance. For a ski trip it covers everything I need really, and the travel insurance possessions I don't cover much. Just use it for injuries, rescue, repatriation, liability and cancellation / piste closure stuff. Bikes are another matter as house insurance doesn't cover the bike, nor does the travel insurance. Even Snow Card doesn't go up high enough.

Jnr FD and Mrs FD have gone with Insure and Go, as to be fair for an on piste skier their policy is ok and quite cheap. They have paid £40 which includes additional premium to cover medical conditions they both have. Think it was about £32 without medical additional cover.

I've hone with a company called MPI did some googling before and they get pretty good reviews. Noted on Snowheads quite a bit, and the company owner skis/has made comments about their cover... If that makes any odds, certainly came across as knowing his stuff. They cover true off piste too including search and rescue. Cost me £40 too. Way cheaper than what Snowcard quoted me.

I reckon you might be confusing what sort of situations actually require a search and rescue. Your scenarios make me thing of why Insure&Go have those exclusions...people don't seem to understand the concept of self rescue, particularly holiday skiiers who only visit alpine/mountainous areas for a wee holiday every year.

2 blokes go off piste, competent skiers etc etc. through their error they ended up skiing in to the wrong valley. By the time they realise they think sod it just ski down and taxi back.

They ski down and their mobiles have no reception, so they can't get a taxi. So they have to walk out to the first village. Taxi journey takes 2hrs back to chalet. They don't get back until 10pm

So in theory we should have raised the alarm, at which the local search and rescue would have been sent out. Here you would end up paying the bill.

Definitely didn't need a rescue. They were uninjured and perfectly capable of walking out. It's EXACTLY those sorts of situations they're trying to avoid. You don't need a helicopter to rescue you.

What about biking in the summer. Bike snaps, 5km in to a 20km remote trail, no mobile reception.

Definitely don't need a rescue. It's summer, walk back like everyone else would. You don't need a helicopter to rescue you.

Or buried in an avalanche. Even if you go to hospital for a check up you haven't injured yourself.

If you've made it out of an avalanche uninjured, why do you need a chopper to rescue you? On the other hand, If you come out of the avalanche alive but injured, you're covered.

Back in the day the Fogg gold card and carte neige were the best. Having seen so many hassles in the past with crap insurers I just wouldn't think twice about paying a bit more. If you have to use it you'll save both a lot of money and heartache.

Other thing to note if you aren't aware is the EHIC card (free) is required in Europe to get reciprocal local treatment, as in you get the same treatment in local state hospitals as you would a local. Doesn't mean it's free treatment, just same as the locals get. Doesn't replace travel insurance and is just for basic medical care, but some insurers might insist you have one and not cover you for the treatment you should normally get with one of these cards.

https://www.gov.uk/european-health-insurance-card

and don't forget to renew it as it expires every few years.

Peter - I agree you can walk out, but I'm talking if concerned wife / friend had called mountain rescue, you will have a bill to pay.

I've never been in an avalanche thankfully but I have heard first hand that it is impossible to dig yourself out. So you need some one to search for you and then dig you out before you suffocate.

Peter - I agree you can walk out, but I'm talking if concerned wife / friend had called mountain rescue, you will have a bill to pay.

Ah right, sorry, I see what you mean. Unfortunately, I think those sort of scenarios will always be excluded, an insurer will never want to pick up the costs of a search and rescue on the basis of a worried third party/ wife (ie the insured didn't actually need rescued at all)

I've never been in an avalanche thankfully but I have heard first hand that it is impossible to dig yourself out. So you need some one to search for you and then dig you out before you suffocate.

If you're in an avalanche where suffocation is a risk and someone has to phone mountain rescue to get a chopper airborne to come and search for you, I don't imagine you'd need to worry about having to pay any sort of bill. Ever.

That's what transceivers, probes and shovels carried by your companions are for.

Been reading this discussion with interest and still not sure I'd want to use insure and go.... Can I add another hypothetical scenarios...

Skiing off piste and you fall and break a leg. You can't provide an exact location beyond (from this lift and above treeline) but do manage to call "search and rescue".

They mobilize a helicopter who then spends an hour flying around looking for you (the search part); They find you. Land. Pick you up and take you to hospital which takes another hour.

They then send you a bill for $3500 which is 2x 1 hours of flying at $1750 / hour.

My impression is that insure and go will only pay $1750 but I doubt many situations will be that easy to dissect.
---------------------------------------

I think the issue is that most places have something called "Search and Rescue" but it sounds like they've been burned by either unnecessary searches or searches that took an age and so only want to pay for rescue. Having needed search and rescue though giving a precise location is tricky.. there have been examples in the Canadian rockies where even things like Spot locators have given locations that were not pin-point so there is almost always some searching involved.

If you're in an avalanche where suffocation is a risk and someone has to phone mountain rescue to get a chopper airborne to come and search for you, I don't imagine you'd need to worry about having to pay any sort of bill. Ever.

Whilst I agree with you, if you are say in the next valley, viewable from the resort, and they can see your tracks, mountain rescue will come and find you. They wont just say, well he mate can dig him out.

Sweaman2 - I put a similar scenario to Insure and Go and they said you would be covered as you required hospital treatment.

Another example, and this actually happened to one of my Dads friends climbing on Ben Nevis in winter. My Dads mate took out a competent summer climber on his first winter climb. They made slower progress than expected, and were not getting up as quick as expected. The weather changed and they ended up spending the night on the face. However the not so experienced (note not incompetent) climber lost his nerve for no apparent reason. They ended up having to be lifted off the hill by RAF helicopter.

That too could easily happen.

Dont get me wrong, I am not trying to excuse incompetence, or stupid risk taking, but just trying to make people aware that they are not always covered for what they think they maybe.

Whilst I agree with you, if you are say in the next valley, viewable from the resort, and they can see your tracks, mountain rescue will come and find you. They wont just say, well he mate can dig him out.

If they come hunting for you without you asking for it then just refuse to pay the bill. Those sorts of situations are both incredibly rare and not the sort of thing the exclusion is designed to cover. Also, it's chopper costs you need to worry about. They're not in a chopper if they're following your tracks from the next valley.

Another example, and this actually happened to one of my Dads friends climbing on Ben Nevis in winter. My Dads mate took out a competent summer climber on his first winter climb. They made slower progress than expected, and were not getting up as quick as expected. The weather changed and they ended up spending the night on the face. However the not so experienced (note not incompetent) climber lost his nerve for no apparent reason. They ended up having to be lifted off the hill by RAF helicopter.

I thought I'd mentioned it earlier but having read through the thread I can't find it...but yes, being cragfast would be a perfect example of a situation when you'd need a search and rescue without being injured...which is why I (or anyone else I know) would never use a mainstream insurer (like insure&go) for climbing (even as a hazardous activity add on). Their policies are far too restrictive for stuff like that. My policy has just lapsed I think, but I'm a member of the Austrian Alpine Club and their insurance will cover the sort of scenario you're talking about.

I should point out that i'm not trying to defend/sell Insure&Go, simply add a bit of perspective on the types of exclusions and their likely impact in the real world. With insurance policies, you're never going to be completely covered, but I can completely understand why you're seeing ghosts with this particular exclusion...it's just not one I'd worry about in the real world.

If you had this discussion with someone who is less balanced ethically, it might go like this:

FunkyDunc: "I'm concerned that if I need a search and rescue and I'm not injured then I'll be hit with a big bill for the search part"

Saul Goodman: "Just make sure you are actually injured then"

FunkyDunc: "But what if I'm not?"

Saul Goodman: "Is it so hard to say you can't move your neck?"

FunkyDunc: "I'm not sure I could fake a sore neck"

Saul Goodman: "The threat of a £25k bill might help your acting talents develop"