Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

insure 4 less grade < 28 policy


IdratherbeclimbingM9

24-Apr-2012
8:10:33 PM

On 24/04/2012 wilbur wrote:
>It does not mean that we cannot insure a climber, just that we want a little bit more information about their experience at the more difficult grades before we do.

Your experience with them still informs me that they have no idea when it comes to sport vs trad, and that they erroneously assume difficulty = danger!

Duncan

24-Apr-2012
9:11:07 PM

On 24/04/2012 wilbur wrote:
>Policy still says a helmet is required...

So wear a helmet.


Ben_E

25-Apr-2012
8:01:31 AM

On 24/04/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>Your experience with them still informs me that they have no idea when
>it comes to sport vs trad, and that they erroneously assume difficulty
>= danger!

Not sure I fully agree, I've gone through them a few times to get cover for US trips and they have at least known the relevant questions to ask with respect to trad/sport. I got the impression they had some relative risk assessments for those at least. I've also asked for cover for both trad cragging (Joshua Tree) and bigwall (multiday aid at Yosemite) at different points - I should see if I can figure out whether they charged differently for the two. You would predict the liabilities would be greater on a multiday El Cap climb due to potential rescue costs - I may be wrong though.

Difficulty didn't really come into it given I'm not climbing anywhere near 28, but you may be right about erroneous assumptions in that area.

All this has got to the point where it's going around in circles a bit though, including multiple threads. Clearly what we really need is some good hard empirical data, say, one person to insure through AAC and another through insure4less and for both to toss themselves off a climb so we can see what happens with actual claims. Anyone willing to take one for the team?


Neil

25-Apr-2012
10:12:16 AM

is it possible they assume difficulty = professional sport

this has been my experience in mountain bike racing. sometimes overseas events are very hard to get insurance for as the insurer considers them professional racing even though there are 100's of amateurs such as myself racing.

if you were an insurer, grade 28 may seem as good as any number to put some sort of amateur/professional barrier on.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

25-Apr-2012
11:29:46 AM

On 25/04/2012 Ben_E wrote:
>Not sure I fully agree, (snip)

Fair enough, and you raise good points BE.

>Clearly what we really need is some good hard empirical data, say, one person to insure through AAC and another through insure4less and for both to toss themselves off a climb so we can see what happens with actual claims. Anyone willing to take one for the team?

Stand back from the ensueing stampede mate; ... though I reckon there would be some on Chocky happy to nominate others for the task in case you don't get enough!


Ben_E

25-Apr-2012
5:46:25 PM

On 25/04/2012 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:

>Stand back from the ensueing stampede mate; ... though I reckon there
>would be some on Chocky happy to nominate others for the task in case you
>don't get enough!

I briefly contemplated setting up a poll on the chocky member people would most like to see "volunteered", but it seemed a little cruel.

25-Apr-2012
6:48:55 PM

Whether grade 29 climbs are dangerous is completely irrelevant to the insurance company, who are insuring for all cause morbidity and mortality.
Look at your old Rock and Ice or Climbing or Heinz Zak's books or even read this forum and count how many of the modest number of climbers who did grade 29 sport 10 years ago are now dead or have been badly injured. Afaik none of them died while sport climbing, but their excess of poor outcomes from other causes makes them a huge insurance risk.
Now compare that to the extremely low published mortality for weekend warriors climbing modest grade trad at the Gunks. Chalk and cheese.
Ni

ademmert

26-Apr-2012
12:26:56 PM

Has anyone look at insurance for a whole year climbing trip in the US and Europe that doesn not blow you out of the water with cost??

Cheers

One Day Hero

26-Apr-2012
1:04:15 PM

On 25/04/2012 ni wrote:
>Whether grade 29 climbs are dangerous is completely irrelevant to the insurance
>company, who are insuring for all cause morbidity and mortality.
>Look at your old Rock and Ice or Climbing or Heinz Zak's books or even
>read this forum and count how many of the modest number of climbers who
>did grade 29 sport 10 years ago are now dead or have been badly injured.
>Afaik none of them died while sport climbing, but their excess of poor
>outcomes from other causes makes them a huge insurance risk.
>Now compare that to the extremely low published mortality for weekend
>warriors climbing modest grade trad at the Gunks.

That explanation doesn't wash. The insurance policies all exclude activities which maim and kill hard climbers, therefore you can't also claim the high death rate from those other activities as a reason why high grade sport routes are excluded. No one gets seriously injured (apart from blowing pulleys) or killed on difficult sport routes, ever!

Someone in insuranceland has made the common and incorrect assumption that danger increases with difficulty.

Btw, if you're looking at global numbers, 10yrs ago there were lots and lots of climbers doing gr29 sport routes. The mistake there is that you think climbing 29 is enough to get you into a magazine. It isn't, and hasn't been since the 80's.

One Day Hero

26-Apr-2012
1:28:41 PM

On 25/04/2012 Ben_E wrote:
>Clearly what we really need is some
>good hard empirical data.............and for both to toss themselves off, so we can
>see what happens..........................Anyone willing to take one for the
>team?

No, but good luck with your "study", hope you find some volunteers.

widewetandslippery

26-Apr-2012
1:40:53 PM

Don't most >28 climbers climb a lot more than <18 climbers?

Don't a lot of modern grade >28 climbers lead climb indoors alot which seems to be the most dangerous form of climbing?

Therefore these people are actually statistically most prone to accident.

One Day Hero

26-Apr-2012
1:58:54 PM

On 26/04/2012 widewetandslippery wrote:
>
>Therefore these people are actually statistically most prone to accident.

Sounds like you're statistically more prone to accident

widewetandslippery

26-Apr-2012
2:52:29 PM

On 26/04/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 26/04/2012 widewetandslippery wrote:
>>
>>Therefore these people are actually statistically most prone to accident.
>
>Sounds like you're statistically more prone to accident

Damo, I am an accident happening

There are 53 messages in this topic.