Hi,
Forgive me if this has been covered before - a cursory search hasn't turned anything up in the forum:
I've used Carte Neige before, but this year have more trips and got kids (?) aged 18/ 15 on one trip. Policies seem to differentiate between ski touring and ski mountaineering. Potentially an arbitrary distinction since we may go out with intentions to keep our skis on, but conditions may dictate otherwise, and we should prudently carry kit to allow progress with crampons and ice axe. Does that suddenly change the insurance threshold?
Both Snowcard and SCGB make a distinction and you go up a notch if they class the activity as Ski Mountaineering as opposed to Ski touring. Snowcard even differentiate at 4000m! The BMC doesn't make the distinction, but won't include my 18 year old as a family member.
I know I can take separate policies etc but actually the SCGB policy looks great for me as an annual travel policy for the whole family, BUT not if I have to put some crampons on to summit, say the Bishorn, and suddenly I have turned from a ski tourer to a ski mountaineer .....
Can anyone point me to the right tread or pass on their experience.
Many thanks.
Bruce
JohnBarnard
This is a bit of perennial question, and though it has been covered by Forum discussions in the past, because insurers keep changing their small print, what is sensible advice once year may be outdated by the following season. There is also a club website page about Insurance under the Info menu (https://www.eagleskiclub.org.uk/info/insurance) which gives some links to possible providers. As you say, the distinction between ski touring and ski mountaineering is a rather arbitrary one, which the club doesn't really make, and you'd need to check what definitions a particular insurer uses. In your example of the Bishorn I'd guess that the distinction might well lie in the fact that it's a glaciated approach, rather than in whether or not you need crampons for the summit ridge on any particular day. My own impression is that Snowcard, who used to be really good, seem to have priced themselves out of our market by their arbitrary altitude cut-offs. The Austrian Alpine Club will get you off the mountain and pay for urgent medical attention, but if you then can't drive home because your leg's in a pot, you're on your own (and any "ordinary" travel insurance won't pay up because your injury was caused by a dangerous activity that wasn't covered). Personally, I've currently got an annual BMC individual policy.
cdpej
John is the sentence "but if you then can't drive home because your leg's in a pot, you're on your own" correct? My understanding is that the OAV policy covers repatriation.
JohnBarnard
The AAC insurance does cover repatriation, but only when "medically necessary" with prerequisties of "life-threatening disturbance to ... health" or inadequate local health care or expected in-patiant stay of more than 5 days [2017 AAC Insurance leaflet, para 2.1]. Thus, once they've set your broken leg or repaired your ruptured ACL or whatever, and you've been been discharged from the local hospital, you have to find your own way home. In may cases, you will simply be able to use your original plans, in which case no problem, but in other cases you may have missed your flight, or be unable to drive your car. Many people will probably be happy to carry these risks, especially if, e.g. there's another driver in the party, but my understanding is that the insurance won't cover any extra costs.
BruceDawson
Thanks for those comments. At least I know I wasn't missing something obvious!
I spoke to the SCGB insurers who admitted it was a grey area, but wouldn't be drawn to any detailed extent, on if they have a better definition of ski touring vs mountaineering. He did suggest that carrying an ice axe/ crampons/ rope would suggest a ski mountaineering "intent" and would therefore drop into their cat 4 set of activities. Leaving the skis in the car would mean mountaineering (cat 6), just taking the skis/ skins means the basic cover would be ok. Adding the cat 4 cover to their policy, just for me, added £70 odd to the cost.
That puts the BMC cover back in the picture - particularly since it covers all my likely activities with no quibble, then I'll just have to buy a standard policy for the family. I may just have another look at the budget option from Carte Neige, but both of those options mean mixing insurance cover for the same trip, which is never a good idea in my opinion.
Bruce
JohnBarnard
The SCGB attitude seems to be dangerously close to suggesting that you're insured against the consequences of an accident only if you fail to take with you the equipment that might prevent it from occurring in the first place. This is not an attitude to risk management that the Club wishes to encourage.
MikeHendry
John - I have met the same contradiction when looking at trekking vs mountaineering cover: taking a rope or a guide makes the activity (in the insurer's view) more dangerous!
BruceDawson
What I find most bizarre with these insurances is that they (particularly SCGB) go to lengths to list a vast array of specific activities and to allocate them to 6 different categories, whilst leaving some of the definitions very vague. I guess they can sell their insurance how they like, but it is an world that provides data to justify Murren Inferno and unguided off piste skiing/ heliskiing, alongside netball and chess!
All I wanted them to do was adequately define what they meant by 'back country skiing' or ski touring.
Am happy to enjoy/ manage (?) serendipity and chance in the natural world, very odd to find such randomness in the hard data driven world of insurance underwriting.
MikeEsten
The AAC cover might not give you all of the cover that you would ideally like, but don't forget that it has no upper age limit.
DaveWynne-Jones
Not sure about the "no quibble" on BMC insurance. There was an issue I remember recently when they refused to pay out for a rescue because the clients hadn't had an accident but were in serious danger of being benighted with an alpine storm coming in (which wasn't enough!).