UKC

/ BMC Insurance Price Increases

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
jdh72 - on 17 Jan 2011
Hi,

I tried to renew my BMC Insurance policy today only to find significant changes to policy options and prices.

Previously to renew a 'Worldwide Annual Alpine & Ski' policy on the web would cost approx £191.

As of today its £221 but limited to a single trip duration of up to 45 days and up to 90 days in total over the year.

The policy is no longer suitable for what I require.

The old policy would have covered me nicely for an up and coming 3 month trip and another long trip at the end of the year. I would have also been covered for lots of other activities inbetween for the whole year.

Now, I would have to take out 2 x 'Worldwide Alpine & Ski - single trip up to 3 months' policies totaling about £764 and over the year I would not have any insurance cover inbetween.

Opinions?

I am not happy about the changes.

Many others will be affected by the changes.

Can anyone recommend where I can get the equivalent to an old BMC Annual Worldwide Alpine & Ski policy at more affordable prices?

HantsTom - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72: How ludicrous, I have been putting off buying an annual cover for a 2 week trip to Scotland and then 3 months in the alps. The same policy you were looking at was ideal. Now they've changed it its practically useless and is going to be a lot more expensive.

I understand businesses have the need for change due to varying terms etc, but for such a drastic change for a national company offering insurance to thousands of people. A little notice would be nice.

I'll have a look around the net but would appreciate any advice on where else to go would be nice.
gingerwolf - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72: this isn't due to the BMC just increasing their prices
Its due to a change in insurance company and they've gone with the cheapest company after the put it out to tender, but couldn't avoid the raise in prices
They are still adamount that their insurance is still the cheapest around for what it offers
AndyC - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

So my annual insurance isn't _annual_ insurance anymore...???

The main reason I joined the BMC was for the insurance. 45 days is not enough for a big mountain. And, looking closer, it appears you have to provide a lot of extra info to even get a quote for Expedition cover.

The BMC - working for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers???!
Hay on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:
Has anyone looked into The Austrian Apline Club? Membership includes insurance and the policies look pretty good to me.

http://www.aacuk.org.uk/benefits.aspx

Bruce
Howard1 - on 17 Jan 2011
I know what you mean I went to cover myself ,the wifey and my youngest daughter on an alpine and ski package to include snowboarding and for two weeks I was qouted £233.75.

Quite a big increase on my last policy with them of £96 in 2009
Fiona Reid - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to Howard1:

Snowboarding now includes an extra loading which was introduced in the last year or so. We were going to go for an annual policy until ticking the snowboard box at which point we went elsewhere.

Lots of companies seem to have upped their prices and included all sorts of extra conditions so its not just the BMC.
fleapitfan - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

It's not underwritten by Fortis any more then?

The lack of knowledge about "dangerous hobbies" in insurance companies generally is pretty shocking, although this sounds more of a pricing issue...

Grr!
JR - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to fleapitfan:

Fortis don't exist anymore.

http://www.ageas.co.uk/
bluerockman on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

The Austrian Alpine Club is very good. I've been a member for a good 8 years and as part of your membership you are covered at a basic level for the activities that most of us indulge in. When I need something a little more comprehensive I've always gone with the BMC so I share your concerns on the price hikes.

However.... Has anyone actually phoned the BMC and spoken to a real person for a quote?
Howard1 - on 17 Jan 2011
Yeah ticking that box does seem to put the price into hyperdrive. Interesting that ice climbing doesn't have it's own tick box I always felt more exposed to injury doing this activity.

fleapitfan - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to JR:

Cheers - That was news to me!
'Hilda' - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72: I tried to go online this morning - but the site was down for maintenance - when it was back up and I put in alpine and ski for a family for a 6 day break was quoted £131. Then I added snowboarding the policy was loaded with another £46 and the cost of the family part of the policy doubled!!! I'm hoping it's a programming error as it would seem like I'm being double loaded?

As it is I won't be going with BMC insurance and will probably not renew my membership either. Feel like I been slapped in the face for being loyal

I hope the BMC take a close look at how hacked off it's members will be !!!
JJL - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

> I am not happy about the changes.
Fair enough

> Many others will be affected by the changes.
There's not *that* many people holidaying for more than 45 days a year

> Can anyone recommend where I can get the equivalent to an old BMC Annual Worldwide Alpine & Ski policy at more affordable prices?
Ahah! So you don't like the price....but can't seem to find it cheaper.

Here's a challenge. go find better cover at a better price and then come here and publicise it.
JR - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to fleapitfan:

Snowcard are underwritten by Aegeas too so it is probably the same there.

You could try these:

https://global.ihi.com/travel+insurance.aspx

But I reckon it'll be the same.

I don't like it but I understand it...
'Hilda' - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to JJL: Not really the point though is it! I've been a member of the BMC for years because of the insurance it offered which was good cover at a reasonable price part subsided by it's membership fees. Why be a member if the insurance is no longer going to be competitive - insurance companies are becoming more greedy and over inflating premiums.
JJL - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
> I've been a member of the BMC for years because of the insurance it offered which was good cover at a reasonable price part subsided by it's membership fees.

Well, I *hope* th einsurance wasn't subsidised. Subsidising your insurance seems like a very bad reason for me to pay my membership.

> Why be a member if the insurance is no longer going to be competitive

Well, I join mainly because I believe in the access advocacy the BMC provides (and the automatic third party insurance). The discount in shops is nice too. Oh, and bringing some degree of order to walls. That, and technical testing. And bolt-replacements. But, hey, if you join just for you, for a discount on your insurance for you so you can do what you want and you don't have to worry about anyone who's not you, that's fine; I understand that.


In reply to 'Hilda': The point is that insurance premiums are going up. The BMC would rather this didn't happen, we all would rather this didn't happen, but it is beyond the control of the BMC. Shop around - if you can get a better deal, take it. If not, it is damn clear that the BMC have the best deal there is - making the most for you out of a shitty situation that is out of their control.
JJL - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

hear hear
'Hilda' - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: Shopping around I can get insurance from Snowcard which includes ice climbing for a couple for £109 and then take out a standard winter snowsports policy including snowboarding for a family for under £20 - saving me over £100 - added to that without a family membership of the BMC at £51 I'm making a fairly decent saving. Money is tight all round and I think that this could well be damaging to the BMC coffers - I have decreasing money available, like most people want the best value for money.
In reply to 'Hilda':
> Money is tight all round and I think that this could well be damaging to the BMC coffers - I have decreasing money available, like most people want the best value for money.

So what exactly is the problem then? you have found a better offer. You have found what you are looking for. What more do you need?!

Be honest here - are you really concerned about BMC coffers, or yours?!?! The BMC's hands are tied, they are well aware it doesn't make happy customers.
JJL - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
> (In reply to nickinscottishmountains) Shopping around I can get insurance from Snowcard which includes ice climbing for a couple for £109 and then take out a standard winter snowsports policy including snowboarding for a family for under £20 - saving me over £100 - added to that without a family membership of the BMC at £51 I'm making a fairly decent saving. Money is tight all round and I think that this could well be damaging to the BMC coffers - I have decreasing money available, like most people want the best value for money.

Go for it then.

Oh, and good luck when you come to claim.
Howard1 - on 17 Jan 2011
Maybe a no claims discount scheme could work. We all try to avoid incidents but maybe some climbers or even boarders are a bit more "adventurous". Or maybe a loyalty bonus if you renew. My car insurers manage this but I suppose it is a bigger Market with more competition

'Hilda' - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: Both - to be honest. The insurance underwriters have taken a look at the lack of competition in the Market and hiked up the premiums accordingly - it's cynical and money making (by the insurance companies and not the BMC). However what I am trying to say is that this could damage the BMC and the work that it does (which I probably didn't make clear in my earlier posts). Money is tight and people will look at their cost and make decisions on that basis.

In reply to 'Hilda': Ah, ok, fair one about being concerned for BMC, and no probs that that wasn't clear - we are all guilty on UKC of not being clear about stuff!
Howard1 - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to JJL: Have you made a claim I would be interested to know if the service was good as we all assume cheap qoutes mean crap cover. I did have a mate I climbed with and he claimed on snocard and seemed happy with the service.
JJL - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to Howard1:

I have made 3 claims on travel insurance in the past 2 years, all rejected.

2 are probably legitimate rejections (on the basis of the small print; not on the basis of common sense); 1 is not and is subject to ongoing dispute.

Briefly:
1. Missed return flight (traffic); missed *return* departures exclude dby most policies. Fair enough.

2. Flight cancelled (weather). Flights originating within UK (Inverness to Heathrow) not covered. Airline offered following day. I needed to be back - hired a car and drove. Not fair enough in my view, but in th eprint.

3. Outbound flight missed due to being in A&E. Not covered because of previous medical treatment for same condition. Which might be fair enough if it was a heart murmur, but mine was more akin to a broken leg. Under "discussion"

The issue is this: insurers have had a rough few years and are trying to rebuild their balance sheets. They only have 2 ways to do this - a) charge more and b) reject claims.

Yes, it sucks. But blaming the BMC (and expecting a subsidy from others' memberships) is foolish. And expecting more than you pay for is equally foolish (as I learned in #1 and #2 above)

Howard1 - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to JJL: You have had a rough time with insurers but you failed to mention if the three claims were on a BMC policy
Stuart S - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to JJL:

For what it's worth, I had to claim against my BMC policy due to an accident whilst climbing in the States. They were quite simply brilliant, both at looking after me while I was stuck in the States, at rebooking my flights to get me and my partner home, and in settling up on medical expenses. As far as I'm concerned, even if they're not the cheapest, I'd rather pay the extra for the peace of mind.
Howard1 - on 17 Jan 2011
Which is what we all want from insurance but I'm just interested if other insurers are as good. If so maybe the ukc could have a league table of insurers so we could all balance cost against service and choose accordingly
'Hilda' - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to Stuart S: As they are now underwritten by a different insurer From FortisI hope that they offer the same service.
liz j on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
Are they a different company or have they just changed their name?
Snowcard are underwritten by the same company, as they have always been. Just booked a weeks insurance for a snowboard trip with Snowcard and saved myself at least £25. I've had to claim from my BMC policy before, and it was sorted in a week so can't see why Snowcard should be any different.
Up High on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
> (In reply to jdh72) I put in alpine and ski for a family for a 6 day break was quoted £131. Then I added snowboarding the policy was loaded with another £46 and the cost of the family part of the policy doubled!!! I'm hoping it's a programming error as it would seem like I'm being double loaded?
>
> As it is I won't be going with BMC insurance and will probably not renew my membership either. Feel like I been slapped in the face for being loyal

So why are you a BMC member do you partake in mountaineering climbing etc or just join for the insurance benefits?
Unfortunately alot of the problems for the insurance premiums is that the snowbording community has realised this is great value joined the BMC used the insurance and have made many claims hence the prmiums have spiralled.
I might be old fashined but I think the BMC should redress their parameters, and not include snow boarding it is not mountaineering,this would nmake the premiums more acceptable for the rest of us.

JJL - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to Howard1:

Not BMC. I thought the point was whethe r"other" insurers would be difficult. These were "others" - 3 different ones! All made trouble.
Dave Turnbull, BMC - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

We'll answer this post properly tomorrow - but in summary - we've had to change Underwriters due to deteriorating claims ratios over the past 2 years. This has been a long and complex process which culminating in the new policy (with ACE) going live at 9.30am today. There are quite a few changes but the Travel Insurance sector as a whole is set to receive double figure increases so we're not alone. We've been very impressed with what we've seen of ACE so far and we're confident that they're right company to be with. The BMC remains committed to providing the best possible services (and insurance cover) for our members; we've had some tricky times of late and we appreciate your loyalty. We will be working closely with our Underwriters over the next 6-12 months to iron out the problem and ensure the best possible deal for members, so I'd encourage you to stick with us.

Ultimately the BMC is a membership organisation - not an Insurance Company - by opting for BMC cover you're doing more than simply insuring your next trip - you're putting a few quid back into looking after the sport/activity which presumably means quite a bit in your life.

Cheers for now

DT
Arcticboy - on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Dave,
Will this effect any insurance policies purchased prior to the change of underwriter?

Cheers
Col
liz j on 17 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Ah, so the BMC policy isn't underwritten by Ageas (formally known as Fortis) but a different company altogether?
Wiley Coyote2 on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

Different people will join the BMC for different reasons. I suspect that many find themselves members because it's a compulsory add on to joining their club. Personally I'm not always very happy with what the BMC does but I tolerate it and grudgingly pay up because of the benefits I get (mainly the insurance. I don't like the way it is sometimes touted (albeit not by the BMC itself) as a 'governing' body and I'm far from sure that I even want them as a representative body either. I don't give a monkey's about competitions, leading ladders, the British Team, Youth Meets, IOnternational junketting or Summit and resent a single peny of my subs going towards paying for any of them.
So insurance is the single most important benefit of membership to me. If it ceases to be the leading policy for climbing I will definitely think twice about renewing my sub when it falls due.
HantsTom - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to JJL: I can see you've had quite a few unfortunate experiences with different insurance companies, but you have to understand having gone from planning on paying 140 quid for a whole years cover, primarily covering two trips. To near on double that for the sake of waiting a few days, is quite a shock and a bit of a kick in the teeth financially. I would hope the new cover will benefit a lot of people due to a better service, but at the same time travel insurance is always something i'd hope not to to use.
Kemics - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

The BMC does seem to be diversifying. I would be a shame if the actual core community of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers got obscured by other groups getting involved. I wouldn't go to a snowboard organisation and expect to get rock climbing insurance, it's funny it goes the other way. Hopefully they at least make a profit on it and that comes back round to help us out.

I'm currently on a year climbing insurance policy. I went with the BMC because i'd heard the service recommended so many times by climbers.
'Hilda' - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

After playing around witht the insurance quote engine on the BMC website I found out the following which may be of interest.

Me, my other half and 13 year old going on holiday for a 6 days to Ski and Snowboard but also to hopefully get in a couple of days climbing ice. As such a need a policy that will cover me for this activity.

If I take out a general holiday policy for all of the usual cover plus Winter Sports I can get a comparible family cover policy for £39.00 for the whole family which also includes Snowboarding. I then take out a second policy with the BMC for me and the other half for a three day duration in the middle of the holiday, to cover any eventuality arising from an accident/incident whilst climbing - this is only £46.53.

If I took out a whole weeks cover with the BMC it would cost me £262.50 including Snowboard loading. This would give me a saving £176.97.

Maybe its just a case of thinking outside of the box a bit.
liz j on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
The snowboard loading seems to not be working correctly though. When I booked my insurance last week, there was an additional £17 added for snowboarding but now it seems to double the premium. I can't see how this is correct and think maybe that they have an error on their system. You were also able to modify the cover to just rescue and emergency cover but this facility has gone as well. So my cover for offpiste snowboarding has cost me £39 with snowcard but would have been £104 with the BMC, doesn't seem right somehow.
Chris the Tall - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Kemics:
>
> The BMC does seem to be diversifying. I would be a shame if the actual core community of climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers got obscured by other groups getting involved. I wouldn't go to a snowboard organisation and expect to get rock climbing insurance, it's funny it goes the other way.

If you are buying annual travel insurance you want to make sure it covers you for everything you do during a year. A high proportion of climbers and hill walkers will also go skiing/snowboarding so will want to be covered for both activities

The reason for the extra loading on snowboarding is simple - claims history ! Almost everyone I know who boards ends up with an injury.

ChrisC - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':

Annual single trip (365 days) insurance for a trip I'm planning (couple insurance) has just jumped from 450 --> 1,047 and if I include snowboarding it doubles to 2,094. That's quite a jump!, would have booked last week if I'd have known. Guess we'll be doing some more shopping around.
'Hilda' - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall: I understand that - my other half broke his elbow - but didn't go to hospital. However I can get snowboarding insurance from any other insurer at vastly lower costs.

As Liz said, I also think that their may be a problem with the Snowboard loading as it significantly increases your family/couples part of the policy cost, plus adds an additional snowboard loading figure. If you take out an idividual policy, you just get the Snowboard loading, but not the increase of the individual policy too.
Toby_W on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:

My broken leg mended much more quickly than the horrible ligament rips and tears of all the skiers and boarders I'd shared a hospital with. It makes me wince just thinking about it. We always consider our day skiing the most dangerous day of our climbing trip ;-)

Cheers

Toby
Fiona Reid - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':

I don't want to put a damper on things...but...usually you need to take out the insurance for the entire duration of your trip and not just the days you'll be doing the higher risk (ice climbing) activities.



'Hilda' - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Fiona Reid:

Hrmph! Probably not so good then.

So for for me, climbing a few pitchs of easy ice in Ceillac will cost me and my other half circa £220 (if I take off the equivalent cost of a comparible insurance which includes snowboarding but excludes ice climbing).

This is how my BMC insurance has gone over the past few years:

2007 my individual 5 day BMC policy cost me £34.50 for 5 days.
2008 our family 5 day policy cost £90.53
2009 our family 5 day policy cost £97.00
2009 a couple 5 day policy cost £40.99
2010 a couple 30 day policy cost £73.08 (without snowboarding)

Now in 2011 I have the following prices all with Alpine and Ski + Snowboarding:

2011 - 7 Days family policy £262.50
2011 - 7 days couple policy £198

Ouch!



Irk the Purist - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to liz j:

Loading seems to make sense. They are discouraging risk. The ski and snowboarding market is much bigger and other insurers cover it. The BMC insurance seems to be going back to the niche market of climbing and mountaineering. By not taking on the snowboarding risk (by making premiums uncompetitive) they can make the cover they do provide better value.

It's like car insurers. Some price new drivers right out of the market by loading their premiums, this makes them able to concentrate on 'safer' drivers.

I used to work for ACE. I remember them getting a subpoena in the US for some kind of dodgy insurance practices.
liz j on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Eric the Red:
I don't disagree with that, but it seems a hell of an increase to go from an additional £17 to doubling the whole premium. I think they have a blip in their system. Skiing also has a high injury rate, and I can't think that snowboarding is that much more high risk to warrant a double whammy.
timjones - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to Eric the Red)
> I don't disagree with that, but it seems a hell of an increase to go from an additional £17 to doubling the whole premium. I think they have a blip in their system. Skiing also has a high injury rate, and I can't think that snowboarding is that much more high risk to warrant a double whammy.

IIRC there are a number of underwriters that found that they were taking a big hit on snowboarding cover. It all seems good to me, as a non-boarder I'm not keen to pay extra on my policy to cover the underwriters losses on snow boarding ;)
Irk the Purist - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to liz j:
But skiing is part of mountaineering and thus the target market, so they can't get rid of it.

Snowboarders, in my experience, tend to be people who 'play' in the mountains and take greater risks. Maybe that is reflected in the claims history in higher payouts, hence the increase.
liz j on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to timjones:
I'm not saying that they shouldn't put a loading on, but double premium seems a bit OTT to me when it was £17 before. Still think it's a blip.
'Hilda' - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to timjones)
> I'm not saying that they shouldn't put a loading on, but double premium seems a bit OTT to me when it was £17 before. Still think it's a blip.

>


I hope its a blip but I'll wait and see - at the moment I can get all the cover I want from Snowcard for a family for under £100 for a week, including Snowboarding, Skiing and Ice Climbing.

At the moment I can't see myself paying 150% extra for staying with the BMC Insurance. Which is a pity really.

Swirly - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72: Imagine what it would have cost if it still included snowboarding on the base policy.


I found dogtag to be cheapest for a recent ice climbing trip to Norway, especially as I snowboard and was going to do that too. Of course the main question with insurance is what happens if I have to claim? I fortunately didn't but have had friends with them in the past who have had expensive rescues, treatment and theft claims paid quickly without trouble.
ChrisC - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Swirly:

Currently looking at the BMC insurance we'll need 2 years worth of annual insurance Alpine and Ski for a couple, which if including snowboarding is approx £4k, or £2k if not.

Using Dogtag then we can cover the whole 18 month trip with a 6 month winter section for between £800 and £1.3k depending on the level of cover desired. The more expensive option seems roughly comparable to the BMC policy.

Much as I'd like to agree with Dave's point here:

> by opting for BMC cover you're doing more than simply insuring your next trip - you're putting a few quid back into looking after the sport/activity which presumably means quite a bit in your life.

The fact is that it's one hell of a lot more than a few quid and prices have gone from being very competitive (£900 for 2 years) to substantially more than some competitors by more than doubling for our case and that's if we exclude snowboarding.
Jerry67 - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
I'm a Club Alpin Francais member and pay about £75 for the year, which includes insurance. Surely a cheaper way of doing things, even if you and your partner had to sign up. Not sure how much it is for children. I'll have a look.
Jerry
Offwidth - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Jerry67: That will be similar coverage as AAC, non? (a great policy but with more limited cover). You pay for what you get. For me an insurance that gives me wider coverage, will not piss me about and get me back home is key; hence BMC.

AAC etc can be a very good alternative if the home office recommend not travelling to a particular country (as per my partner when she climbed Elbrus)
Jerry67 - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Offwidth: I have to say the one time I needed them - broken leg, thus repatriation, they were very good. Would recommend them.
J
Offwidth - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Jerry67:

I'm sure they are very good for what they do (but with less cover in many respects that you may want to insure seperately). Any climbing insurance should be with a company you can trust rather them than some cheap quote from a random company you know nothing about in such circumstances... but many people are stupid.
Tom Briggs on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Dave,

Can you confirm whether or not BMC members' subscriptions subsidise the travel insurance policy?

Thank you
shantaram - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72: As Dave Turnbull pointed out BMC are now underwritten by ACE. Snowcard are still underwritten by Ageus (formerly Fortis). I have found both BMC and Snowcard to be very good insurers for any mountain based activities, and have been very prompt and efficient in any emergency/claim situations. I work for an adventure travel company and we have had a number of situations where we have had to deal with the insurance companies. Both BMC and Snowcard insured clients have had by far the best service compared to other companies.

I suspect the huge increase in insurance premiums this year is partly due to some external factors in the past year, such as the Icelandic ash cloud and also a large number of cancelled flights to/from Lukla in Nepal this Autumn.
Tom Briggs on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to shantaram:

> I suspect the huge increase in insurance premiums this year is partly due to some external factors in the past year, such as the Icelandic ash cloud

The travel insurance industry did not accept liability for the ash cloud.


Tom Briggs on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':
> insurance companies are becoming more greedy and over inflating premiums.

I doubt it. From my experience of selling travel insurance, the losses on the BMC policu will have outweighed the premiums. Simple as that.

Dave Turnbull, BMC - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:

Not really Tom. Subs are separate, the BMC makes a % on each policy sold and this funds a fairly significant proportion of our work for climbers and walkers. Without this income we wouldn't be able to do anything like as much as we do at present - so its really quite important.

Dave
'Hilda' - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:

OK - I accept that - but does that infer that statistically BMC policy holders are more likely to make a claim, hence the huge increase in policy cost, excluding Snowboard claims?

Just be interested to know...
Jim Hamilton - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to 'Hilda')
> [...]
>
> Well, I *hope* th einsurance wasn't subsidised. Subsidising your insurance seems like a very bad reason for me to pay my membership.
>
> [...]
>
> Well, I join mainly because I believe in the access advocacy the BMC provides (and the automatic third party insurance). The discount in shops is nice too. Oh, and bringing some degree of order to walls. That, and technical testing. And bolt-replacements. But, hey, if you join just for you, for a discount on your insurance for you so you can do what you want and you don't have to worry about anyone who's not you, that's fine; I understand that.

Although with that argument you might say why should members susidise your TP liabilty cover, bolting of crags they don't go to etc, not to mention the various jollies for the climbing elite !

neilh - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
Some did, most did not. All depends on the contract.
Tom Briggs on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to 'Hilda':

> OK - I accept that - but does that infer that statistically BMC policy holders are more likely to make a claim, hence the huge increase in policy cost, excluding Snowboard claims?

I wouldn't have thought so. Some of the big insurers have bowed out of the travel insurance market recently. Overall, I don't think any insurers have made much out of travel insurance in the last few years.
Tom Briggs on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thanks for clarity on that.
Dave Turnbull, BMC - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

Following my posting last night, here’s some further details about what’s going on with BMC Insurance.

We were with our previous underwriters, Fortis, for about ten years. About six months ago they announced that they were considering withdrawing from our scheme, which meant we had to find a replacement with the help of our brokers, Perkins Slade. ACE soon emerged as the preferred choice and we’ve spent the last three months negotiating details.

This change of underwriter was triggered by a few trends and one-off occurrences over the last few years – some specific to the outdoors world, others an unavoidable consequence of the financial crisis.

Unsustainably good value
Firstly, our insurance had become unsustainably good value (i.e. far too cheap) for certain categories: older people, snowboarders and certain geographical areas such as North America. Claims for these categories tend to be expensive – hence the new loadings to reflect our recent claims history. In addition, we managed to hold our rates almost level for three/four years instead of raising them yearly – great news last year, but the downside is that the recent percentage increase will seem higher.

Large claims
Secondly, we’ve had several particularly large claims: a £210,000 bill for a rescue from Antarctica, a number of high-cost snowboarding claims from the USA and some big hits from accidents on cruise ships. These claims weren’t from our core members going climbing, hill walking or mountaineering, so we’ve addressed the issue by introducing a detailed questionnaire for polar region cover and increasing the policy loading on snowboarding from 35% to 50%.

The financial crisis
Thirdly, and most importantly, the Travel Insurance sector as a whole is suffering from the hangover of the financial crisis. You’ll see significant price hikes across the board – we’re one of the first to introduce the new rates but others will soon follow. This is driven by the weakness of the pound against foreign currencies (overseas medical bills become much more expensive when paid in pounds) and the fact that medical costs in the USA are becoming even more astronomical than they have been in the past.

But one thing remains unchanged: no matter what happens to you, wherever you are in the world, you can rely on BMC insurance to get you home. ACE is a quality set up with a long-term commitment to mountaineering and for emergency situations they use First Assist. Our BMC insurance experts have visited the First Assist operation and returned very impressed – if you get into trouble in the mountains, make no mistake, BMC insurance will get you home.

The BMC works for hill walkers, climbers and mountaineers, and in the current financial climate that’s where we are refocusing our insurance scheme – not on gap year trips or snowboarders. And, unlike other companies, we’re still offering mountaineers cover in all countries and at any altitude.

All profits from the insurance sales also go straight back into our work – looking after climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers, and safeguarding access to the mountains. With other companies, you’re simply keeping the fat cats well fed.

We’re convinced that the customer service and support team at the BMC office is second to none. So if you’ve got any questions then please ring the office on 0161 445 6111 (9-5, Mon-Fri); you’ll get straight through to a real-live person (usually called Jim or Ray) who’ll be able to explain all the details of the new scheme.
Tom Briggs on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
> With other companies, you’re simply keeping the fat cats well fed.

The BMC has piled it high and sold it cheap over the past few years. Some might say that the chickens have come home to roost.


FrJ on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Thanks Dave, and for the work in negotiating with new insurers.
neilh - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
I just hope the BMC has a good quality and indepth statistical analysis of where the claims are coming from.

Otherwise you are going to get other " travel" insurers cherrypicking the best risks at low premiums and the BMC being unable to compete. For example it would be intetesting to learn the claims cost of people say over the age of 30 on European rock trips against other high risks. I hope for the BMC's sake they have all the claims stats available, otherwise they are going to get squeezed.

beh on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
> Secondly, we’ve had several particularly large claims: a £210,000 bill for a rescue from Antarctica,

http://lifeinthevertical.blogspot.com/2009/07/bear-grylls-bmc-and-us.html ?

JJL - on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> Although with that argument you might say why should members susidise your TP liabilty cover, bolting of crags they don't go to etc, not to mention the various jollies for the climbing elite !

Not really - the bolting etc. is for climbers generally, not for *me* per se (which subsidising your hooliday cover would be).

However, I agree regarding jaunts for the "elite" (unless you're referring to me, of course, in which case thank you very much)
Damo on 18 Jan 2011
In reply to beh:
> (In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC)
> [...]
>
> http://lifeinthevertical.blogspot.com/2009/07/bear-grylls-bmc-and-us.html ?

I would be really interested to know if the connection suggested in this article is true.

Given the 2003 Ice Kites fiasco (insured by the BMC, no?), the number of falsehoods in the Grylls/Antarctica website, the fact that their expedition can not really name an Antarctic peak, and the fact that naming peaks after sponsors in Antarctica contravenes official guidelines, and that doing so is frowned upon in climbing circles generally and is the subject of an upcoming editorial comment in a major publication, I would be surprised that the BMC would cover such a trip. Surely not?

timjones - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to beh)
> [...]
>
> I would be really interested to know if the connection suggested in this article is true.
>
> Given the 2003 Ice Kites fiasco (insured by the BMC, no?), the number of falsehoods in the Grylls/Antarctica website, the fact that their expedition can not really name an Antarctic peak, and the fact that naming peaks after sponsors in Antarctica contravenes official guidelines, and that doing so is frowned upon in climbing circles generally and is the subject of an upcoming editorial comment in a major publication, I would be surprised that the BMC would cover such a trip. Surely not?

What have ethical issues regarding the naming of peaks got to do with insurance?

Damo on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to timjones:

I originally wrote a much longer post that demonstrated links, but thought it was a bit OT.

Basically, it comes down to what, if any, discretion the BMC has, or uses, in agreeing to insure expeditions. And to what degree, if any, that discretion, given the basic name and nature of the BMC, is representative of the British mountaineering and/or climbing community, it's culture and ethos.

I don't know the answers - hence my question.

For the record, I'm certainly not implying that, there was any impropriety in the accident or claim on the part of the Grylls team regarding this incident.
bedspring on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

With other companies, you’re simply keeping the fat cats well fed.

I object to that.
I fully support the BMC and last time I checked I pay subs to you at least twice and have full worldwide cover and will continue to do so, however I feel that comment is totally unprofessional.
Tom Briggs on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Damo:

You can't excuse making a loss on the insurance policy because you were hit by one big claim. If you sell this type of travel insurance then every year there is one big 'unusual' claim. The BMC policy was too cheap. You can exclude snowboarding, or Antarctica or something else in the future, but if your margins are cut to the bone, you're going to be caught out by something else next time. If the BMC had sold the policy for a fair price, rather than pursuing an aggressive price strategy, then maybe they wouldn't be in this position now of having to hike up prices massively. They thought they were doing the membership a favour by selling it cheap, but they got it wrong.
Charlie_Zero on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Large claims
> Secondly, we’ve had several particularly large claims: a £210,000 bill for a rescue from Antarctica, a number of high-cost snowboarding claims from the USA and some big hits from accidents on cruise ships. These claims weren’t from our core members going climbing, hill walking or mountaineering, so we’ve addressed the issue by introducing a detailed questionnaire for polar region cover and increasing the policy loading on snowboarding from 35% to 50%.
>

Perhaps the underwriters should have paid more attention to the premiums charged for expedition and high altitude cover. Then premiums might have remained at lower levels for the bulk of purchasers.

Is part of the premium charged to cover a five day climbing trip to Wales used to subsidise someone's premium for insurance to climb K2, for example? Do those premiums go into the same pot of money?

The BMC should certainly focus its services on those that are required by its core walking and climbing members for their usual activities, otherwise it will lose members.
Jim Hamilton - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
> (In reply to Damo)
>They thought they were doing the membership a favour by selling it cheap, but they got it wrong.

I can't think this was the case. Was the BMC scheme much cheaper than others ? Presumably there is little incentive for them just to make it cheap for the membership, rather they want a successful scheme as they get the commission.

I assume the BMC scheme underwriters set the rates, although whether these properly reflected the risk - £18.32 for a weeks walking in North Wales, £216.18? for Bear expeditioning in Antartica for 24 days ? on last years rates. Also guessing the underwriters would reinsure to protect themselves to some extent for the "big" claim.

If BMC insurance is thought of as the number 1 benefit by its members, should the BMC be channeling commission back into making premiums lower and cutting back on other spending ?
Offwidth - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:

" but they got it wrong." far too simplistic even if they did make any mistakes in detail and hence suprising that you would keep pressing this point. Its very easy to take potshots with the benefits of hindsight but even then, have they really done that much worse than other providers?
In reply to Damo: Read the Bear Grylls thing, frankly I think that is a pile of crap. Insurers weigh up the need for casevac from expedition, whether to casevac to a facility that can deal with it, or back to te UK, or the first then the second. It suggests Bear did not need casevacing - I'm sure the insurers looked into this and made up their own mind.

A pile of sensationalist crap, that appeals to the anti-Grylls gang.
In reply to Damo:
> Basically, it comes down to what, if any, discretion the BMC has, or uses, in agreeing to insure expeditions. And to what degree, if any, that discretion, given the basic name and nature of the BMC, is representative of the British mountaineering and/or climbing community, it's culture and ethos.
>
The BMC do not "agree to insure expeditions". Through the BMC you can buy insurance, the insurance company decide whether or not to grant insurance and whether or not the cliam is in keeping with the insurance.
Chris the Tall - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
> (In reply to Damo)
>
> You can't excuse making a loss on the insurance policy because you were hit by one big claim. If you sell this type of travel insurance then every year there is one big 'unusual' claim. The BMC policy was too cheap. You can exclude snowboarding, or Antarctica or something else in the future, but if your margins are cut to the bone, you're going to be caught out by something else next time. If the BMC had sold the policy for a fair price, rather than pursuing an aggressive price strategy, then maybe they wouldn't be in this position now of having to hike up prices massively. They thought they were doing the membership a favour by selling it cheap, but they got it wrong.

Think you've got this completely wrong

Rather than having margins "cut to the bone", the insurance was actually making an almost embarrassingly high profit for most of the last decade - great for the BMC coffers, but not so good for the members. And I would say that for most of that decade it's annual insurance policy has been more expensive than Snowcard - at least for someone like me who goes bolt-clipping and skiing, possibly not for someone going alpine mountaineering.
Damo on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
> (In reply to Damo)
Through the BMC you can buy insurance, the insurance company decide whether or not to grant insurance and whether or not the cliam is in keeping with the insurance.

Righto, thanks for the clarification.
Damo on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
> (In reply to Damo) Insurers weigh up the need for casevac from expedition, whether to casevac to a facility that can deal with it, or back to te UK, or the first then the second. It suggests Bear did not need casevacing - I'm sure the insurers looked into this and made up their own mind.

Well, yes and no, given the location and varying logistical options there's a bit more to it, usually - at least the Antarctic medevacs I've had anything to do with or know about.

I would agree though the linked article seems to rely a bit heavily on supposition, and making a link that may not exist. I didn't read it so much as doubting the need for evac, as questioning whether or not it was appropriate for the BMC to insure such a trip. Hence my other question, which you answered.

I know of four spurious Antarctic expedition claims on insurance for sure, with several others highly suspicious. In two of those three, they were directly credited with either upping the premiums for all, the next year, and in another case, causing the cancellation of all such insurance by the company completely. I've seen no evidence that this expedition falls into either category.

For the record, both motorised gliders and portaledges had both previously been used in Antarctica.
IainWhitehouse - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> (In reply to Tom Briggs - Jagged Globe)
> [...]
>
> Think you've got this completely wrong
>
> Rather than having margins "cut to the bone", the insurance was actually making an almost embarrassingly high profit for most of the last decade - great for the BMC coffers,

I don't think he has Chris. We cannot infer that the premiums were set at a sensible level from the fact that the BMC has made a profit. The presumably BMC doesn't bear the cost of claims so their profit is a simple excercies in keeping costs of selling below the level of income.

When Foundry Travel stopped selling insurance it was not because Foundry Travel weren't making money but because the underwriters weren't.
Chris the Tall - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
In addition to commission, the BMC received an annual bonus if claims were low. I think it first occurred in 2003 or 2004, when Ken Wilson dubbed it "the bolt-clippers dividend"

When did Foundry Travel stop selling insurance ?
neilh - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:
That is probably not the case.These type of schemes are usually run on a delegated authority basis with some form of profit share deal and a host of other points. What this means is the the BMC will have had reasonably flexiable guidleines about what it can and cannot do without telling the insurers.Depending on the nature of the scheme this will be reviewed on a regular basis and adjusted accordingly.

Again depending on the scheme, the BMC may have claims settling suthority, upto a pre-determined point.

These schemes can be very sophisticated.
Tom Briggs on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
> (In reply to Tom Briggs - Jagged Globe)
> [...]
> >They thought they were doing the membership a favour by selling it cheap, but they got it wrong.
>
> I can't think this was the case. Was the BMC scheme much cheaper than others ? Presumably there is little incentive for them just to make it cheap for the membership, rather they want a successful scheme as they get the commission.

Yes, it was much cheaper, certainly for single trip mountaineering policies. Their marketing spiel 3 (?) years ago centered on 'reduced premiums' and they effectively undercut the market.

Of course one's view on all this depends to what extent you think the BMC should be competing in the commercial sector and how big the BMC needs its membership to be? I am biased of course. Our policy used to pay for a member of staff, not any more. Providing employment in the outdoor sector, or "keeping the fat cats rich" as Dave suggests?
Jim Hamilton - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
>
> Of course one's view on all this depends to what extent you think the BMC should be competing in the commercial sector and how big the BMC needs its membership to be? I am biased of course. Our policy used to pay for a member of staff, not any more. Providing employment in the outdoor sector, or "keeping the fat cats rich" as Dave suggests?


I seem to remember that insurance was thought of as the number 1 benefit by BMC members, so my view is that as the BMC (as a membership organisation) should plough its insurance scheme profits straight back into reducing premiums (and not skewed if say bolt clippers are financing expeditions etc).

looking at a BMC leaflet for 3 of the 4 2010 "priorities" -

- run a BMC conference "understanding the uplands; shaping the future for recreation and conservation "

- host a reception celebrating Welsh Mountaineering at the Nat Assembly

- develop a portfolio of BMC research projects

not to mention other grants and jollies, suggests, on the face of it, that the BMC don't really need to hive off the insurance money, and should make do with their annual £1.6 m plus membership income.
Tom Briggs on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
> (In reply to Tom Briggs - Jagged Globe)
> not to mention other grants and jollies, suggests, on the face of it, that the BMC don't really need to hive off the insurance money, and should make do with their annual £1.6 m plus membership income.

Presumably with the reduced competitiveness of their insurance policy, there will be a significant reduction in the membership income.
Chris the Tall - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
>
> I seem to remember that insurance was thought of as the number 1 benefit by BMC members,

How long ago was that ? Access has always come out on top of any survey I've seen. The BMC has evolved considerably from the days when insurance was it primary focus
Tom Briggs on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Maybe the Liability Insurance?
Graeme Alderson on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall: Probably confusion between member benefits (ie insurance etc) and BMC work (ie access) - think there was different sections on the survey
Offwidth - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to IainWhitehouse

However the underwriter profitability level isn't a simple matter either, again even with hindsight.
toad - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
> (In reply to Jim Hamilton)
> [...]
>
> Presumably with the reduced competitiveness of their insurance policy, there will be a significant reduction in the membership income.

That's an interesting point. Because BMC membership is a pre requisite for insurance, it will be interesting to see how many people are (or were) "members of convenience", though I'd hope the BMC would have a handle on this.
Sarah G on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to Tom Briggs - Jagged Globe)
> [...]
>
> That's an interesting point. Because BMC membership is a pre requisite for insurance, it will be interesting to see how many people are (or were) "members of convenience", though I'd hope the BMC would have a handle on this.

Me. I used to be a member for precisely this reason. The rest was a bonus, from my point of view.

I let the membership lapse when I didn't need insurance for climbing abroad.

Sx

Offwidth - on 19 Jan 2011
In reply to toad:

Membership changes won't be simple either. As two examples: isn't there an increase in the proportion of mountain walkers, scramblers & winter walkers, cf climbers; increasing pressures on access should encourage people to join to help out (esp down to recent goverenment funding changes). Lets hope the likes of Sarah G are in the minority.

I'm not trying to understate the import of these insurance changes: lets just not carried away and overstate them and over-simplify and turn possible effects into false correlations.
Sarah G on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm just honest. I was climbing lots and using insurance at a time when the BMC was still reeling from the Rheged fiasco- not a good encouragement to join; part from subsidising the insurance, I was reluctant to join the BMC so it could waste my membership fee on projects like this. I am sure the access etc is very worthy...but not worth the £30 it is nowadays just to join.

I doubt I'm on my own in this opinion, even if it is a minority.

"The likes of" Sx
Alex1 - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to jdh72:

I'm amazed that people can say that an organisation which plays a key role in arranging access to crags is a bad deal at £30 for the year. For me the key reason to go BMC is that you know that your covered for proper climbing and you don't need to worry about small print - if they don't want to insure other activities that's fair enough, it's not like there is a lack of other companies available.
JR - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Sarah G:

I'll pay £30 a year to climb at Craig Y Longridge.
Offwidth - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Sarah G:

Evidence would show you are in the majority. Yet if you are a climber, access is a good bit more than 'worthy'. I'm happy to pay membership and also help out with my time and money (petrol etc I've used for BMC stuff makes the membership costs look like peanuts). Even if someone really objects to some stuff the BMC does they can always donate to the access fund or give up their own time to help the good things. I'm no saint but I love climbing and think its only right I try and put something back, and would encourage others to do the same.
neilh - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:
Your view on them undercutting the market is wrong. What they have done is bulk buying power in the market to get advantageous rates to the benefit of their members.

There is nothing wrong in that and is very common.

As long as it 's profitable to all three parties then that is fine - so members, the insurers and the BMC benefit.

But when one or more of those do not benefit, then these type of schemes fall apart, usually in 1 or 2 years

If the premium hikes driven by the insurers not making money are not competitive for the members then the individual members will go elsewhere.Simple as that.

Seen it before.
flaneur - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Tom Briggs:

> Yes, it was much cheaper, certainly for single trip mountaineering policies. Their marketing spiel 3 (?) years ago centered on 'reduced premiums' and they effectively undercut the market.

When I rejoined the BMC around 3 years ago, the cost of the insurance alone (for multi-trip rock climbing) was somewhat cheaper than competitors but the total cost of BMC insurance + membership was greater. So I didn't think BMC insurance was a screamingly good deal but I was happy to join to support the other work they do.
balmybaldwin - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to neilh:
> (In reply to Tom Briggs - Jagged Globe)
> Your view on them undercutting the market is wrong. What they have done is bulk buying power in the market to get advantageous rates to the benefit of their members.
>


These schemes often imply a reduction in risk to the insurer too... YOu can insure a classic car for a fraction of the price a modern one if you are a member of a classic car club - you are deemed a lower risk because car club members tend to care for their cars more and are less reckless.

Same theory applies to BMC insurance - because you are a member of the BMC (and get all their safety bumf and info) you are in the insurance companies eyes less likely to be a numpty and therefore a lower risk.
This is how they are able to offer lower premiums.
neilh - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I somehow doubt that in insurers eyes a climbing insurance scheme implies low risk!!

More likely you are maximising your buying power to make it a mor einteresting proposition.

Safety bumf, is a red herring , as attending for example safety course is not compulsory.

Greg Murrow on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to neilh: Consider joining the French Alpine Club (CAF). You'll have to make your own comparisons.
neilh - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Greg Murrow:
At some stage soembody in the BMC may want to do a comparison with what the model is in France, Germany, Italy etc. Also they should be able to access the insurer in that market as they are all part of the EC.

I am sure their advisers will have been down that route...well I hope they have...
Chris the Tall - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Sarah G)
>
> Evidence would show you are in the majority.

Not so sure, at least not in recent years

If you look back through your magazines you will notice that until a few years ago the BMC didn't really advertise membership as such - it advertised it's insurance. The message was join the BMC for cheap insurance. Only once people were members, and started getting Summit etc, did they become more aware of the work the BMC does.

The "Climb It, Walk It, Protect It" ad campaign, along with using websites like this to tell people about it's works and the efforts to get more people to area meetings, represents a subtle but significant change of tack. Now the message is join the BMC because you are a climber or hillwalker. Ask not what the BMC can do for you etc etc!

And combined with the Direct Debit offer, there has been a pretty remarkable increase in membership - something like 30% in the last 5 years.

I'm not saying that insurance price increases won't have an effect on BMC revenue, but I don't think the BMC should be unduly worried. The days when Ken could declare "The only reason individuals join the BMC is to get insurance" are long gone.


Offwidth - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall: I'm certain. There are way more climbers than climbers in BMC membership (which contains quite a few non-climbers responsible for a lot of that increase).
Offwidth - on 21 Jan 2011
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Im sure Ken could still declare it if he wanted but I agree he wouldn't be right.
lucie_b on 22 Jan 2011
In reply to Eric the Red: Why is snowboarding not part of mountaineering? Split boards have obviously passed you by and you can't have seen Jeremy Jones' Deeper http://www.tetongravity.com/deeper/

And your 'experience' of snowboarders taking more risks is wide of the mark. Recent research shows that while snowboarders are more likely to suffer minor injury, it's skiers that have higher figures of serious injury and death. http://whitelines.mpora.com/news/official-skiing-dangerous-snowboarding.html
chasm - on 22 Jan 2011
In reply to Fiona Reid:
I don't see why you should pay for high-risk activities for days you don't require it. I've just taken a life assurance policy for which I've asked to have climbing / mountaineering excluded due to the hike in premium. Bearing in mind I've been doing other things for the past several months, I don't see why I should pay ~£40/month for climbing, when I'm not. I'll choose to insure for trips with specific activity insurers when I get past the non-climbing phase I'm in. There's no reason why I wouldn't insure (for example) for a week's skiing with the other weeks in the month's tour insured on just standard vacation cover. Foolish to do otherwise imho.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.