Anyone affected by UK security alert?

[Ciapolin]

Ha! I hadn't thought of that! I had planned to ask forum members whether anyone could cash the cheque for me and send me my share!

[Ju]

Just had my second set of guests cancelled (were due to arrive today).

Something that hadn't occured to me is that their insurance company won't pay out because the cancellation is due to an act of terrorism. They have paid in full, and aren't expecting a refund (I have offered them alternative dates), but I wonder whether there are likely to be problems for others.

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that the insurance companies are conning people. No act of terroism occured therefore how can the cancellation be due to an act of terroism? Most of the planes that have been cancelled are so that the airlines can clear their backlog. Whos to say that if they brought in a few more staff, or Fred Bloggs hadn't called in sick, that the flight wouldn't have gone ahead as planned?

If this were me I would be fighting the case.

Ju

[Hells Bells]

Ju, that had occured to me too. There was also an insurance case in the paper yesterday where two young men died in an avalanche las year. Their insurance company won't pay out, despite the policy covering them for off-piste skiing. Their familys arebeing pursued by the French authorities for the cost of the attempted rescue. Apparentlyit was a 'foreseeable' danger.

[Alan Knighting]

Helen,

To an extent I share the commonly held view that insurance companies will avoid a claim if possible. On the other hand I do not accept the modern approach when people say “I want compensation� even when the event is, in part or in the whole, their own fault.

It's called "contributory negligence" and no insurance company is going to pay out on that basis, nor should they. I don’t want my premiums used up in indemnifying others against their own stupidity.

Accidents will happen but only rarely when the foreseeable danger is recognised and due precautions are taken.

Alan

[Ju]

Alan, I am interested in your view on the cancelled flights due to hightened security. I can wholy see your point on the "foreseeable danger" side of things, and I do think people need to take some responsibility for their own actions.

Ju

[Hells Bells]

Ju and Alan, so do I, but as they had chosen to insure themselves against the dangers of off-piste skiing, I think it may be being used as a get-out clause.

[Mountain Goat]

There was also an insurance case in the paper yesterday where two young men died in an avalanche last year. Their insurance company won't pay out

Helen
The report I read (Inde 17aug06) was quite detailed: - they were experienced snowboarders, who had gone off-piste despite a Factor Three avalanche risk ('considerable' on a scale of 1 - 5). Small print stated they were not covered for 'exposure to danger which is reasonably foreseeable'.

You, as an experienced skier, know more than I do whether this was reasonable or not.

Goat

[Hells Bells]

I stick to the pistes on the whole though. It is not unusual for there to be an avalanche risk of 3, although most fatal avalanches occur in France at levels 3 and 4 (I assume anyone going out at level 5 would be an idiot.) http://pistehors.com/ gives more details. I think if they did not check the avalanche bulletin, and crossed ropes etc, they were foolish, but it is only a quirk of French law that means their parents are being pursued, as they were single adults.

[Ciapolin]

I agree totally with the contributory negligence, but remember some years ago on a skiing holiday being too scared to get off a ski lift half way up and ending up at the top of a slope that was way beyond my capabilities. I ended up 'walking' back down, but on the way had to pass through a section that was cordoned off becauseof the risk of avalanches.

[Alan Knighting]

Helen,

Ju and Alan, so do I, but as they had chosen to insure themselves against the dangers of off-piste skiing, I think it may be being used as a get-out clause.

I agree with you, the insurance company's interpretation might differ from that of the insured. The real point is that insurance is against known or anticipated risks, not against recklessness. If the insured acts irresponsibly he carries the risk, not the insurance company.

I’m not supporting the cause of the insurance companies; I am suggesting people act in a sensible way according to the known circumstances.

It’s analogous with the swimming pool safety debate. Swimming pools are known to be dangerous places. It is not sensible to dive into the shallow end. It is not sensible to leave little children unsupervised. It is not reasonable to expect an insurance company to indemnify against the consequences – at least I don’t think so.

Alan