UKC

BMC insurance is trusted by thousands of climbers and mountaineers to get them out of sticky situations.

But the credit crunch means that travel insurance costs are rising across the board.

The BMC insurance prices have gone up and there has been discussion on this in the UKC forums. Why have they risen? Are the new fees justified?

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=59881

In reply to UKC News:

"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 it's really quite important."

ok but the BMC is sitting on (and wondering what to do with) a fairly healthy bank balance
so how needed is it at the mo ?

In reply to lithos: Not everyone is wondering what to do with the reserves, many think it should be kept for emergencies eg buying the Roaches if required. I favour this approach rather than using it to subsidise insurance premiums or the day to day running of the BMC.

Graeme
Annual Worldwide Policy holder since Dec 2007

In reply to Graeme Alderson: Like that man said.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

subsidise insurance premiums, i think you have that the wrong way around ! Anyhow
I hear what you are saying but think its a point worth noting ?

In reply to lithos:
If the BMC were to subsidise insurance then rival insurance providers such as Jagged Globe would have every reason to cry foul

In reply to UKC News:
Why is it that whether or not you have claimed before you pay the same for BMC insurance? It seems strange when you contrast it to the car insurance industry where the premium is related to age, gender and previous accident records.
Just a musing of mine.
James

In reply to UKC News:

"Secondly, we've had several particularly large claims: a big bill for a rescue from Antarctica"

Wonder if that was that bell-end Grylls?

In reply to Southern Man:

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

In reply to Chris the Tall:

But as lithos - i don't think there is a suggestion that premiums are subsidised by membership fees or reseves, as the scheme generates a profit for the BMC.

However it would be more equitable to members, who value the BMC activity insurance, if this profit is retained within the scheme to help lower premiums rather than spent elsewhere.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

whay -heh someone got what i meant !

In reply to Jim Hamilton: So if I buy other services off the BMC should the profit be retained within that particular service and give me a discount?

In reply to UKC News: Quote from Dave in the article -
"Having said that – to give a few cost comparisons of our most popular products – a 12 month European rock climbing policy has gone up from £107.78 to £117.60, .....; so we're not necessarily talking big bucks"

But the problem with this comparison is that the 2 policies bear no resemblance to each other!

Previous policy - 93 day trip limit, no limit to number of trips per year

New policy - 45 day trip limit, total limit of 90 days per year!

So if you want to take a longer trip, or use more than 90 days in total, you have to take out an additional policy (the BMC website states "If you are planning a trip longer than 45 days then you will need to take out Single Trip cover for the required period.", and a 3 month single trip premium for a European Rock trip is £150.89!

So a more realistic comparison is up from £107.78 to at least £268.49 for any kind of equivalent cover!

Cheers
Andy

In reply to UKC News: One question which I think could do with answering in the light of a new underwriter and (presumably) a more stringent focus on examining claims - what is the position with claims relating to the theft of personal possessions which are left "unattended" in the NORMAL COURSE of climbing/mountaineering?

The new policy wording specifically states that -
- You MUST take reasonable care to keep your personal property safe
- What is not covered - loss or theft of any personal property left unattended ... (with some exceptions about it being locked away)
- Unattended is defined as "Where you are not in full view of or in a position to prevent unauthorised taking or interference with your personal property"

So what is the position with -
- a tent and other camping gear left on a campsite or wild camping while you are away from it climbing?
- a rucksack/any spare gear or clothing left at the bottom of a crag while you are on the route?

I've had confirmation from the BMC in the past that property IS covered in these circumstances (I guess it boils down to what is considered to be taking "reasonable care"), but in the light of the new insurer and policy I think it is worth asking again.

Cheers
Andy

In reply to: In my view, as Andy has correctly identified, the devil is in the detail. Comparing equivilent policies from different providers is one sensible measure of value for money, but not necessarily the determining factor.

I'm not convinced that the majority of BMC annual policy holders took out the policy because "its the cheapest", other considerations are the way in which the cover is weighted. Ie. if all your gear gets stolen whilst in your tent and you're on the hill, you'll probably lose out. But if you go missing whilst you're on the hill they wont stop searching until they're sure you're dead.

As for what the BMC does with its financial reserves, surely this is a decision for the BMC...we trust them to lobby for legislation to protect access, negotiate with landowners, act as a representative body for us all and give training and advice. Surely we should trust them to decide how/where/when to spend the profits they get; currently they plough these back into the things mentioned above - hence those with a genuine interest in the causes of the BMC stand to benefit twice.

Finally, 'buying crags' is a dangerous game for which a balance needs to be struck. If we allow private landowners to make access to crags a comodity which can be bought and sold, you can guarantee that it'll be more than just the cost of your premium that will rise!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

i suppose it would depend on the service, figures involved, practicalities etc. but in priciple i would say yes.

In reply to Dan-gerMouse:
fair enough, but I think it deserves a bit of comment/scrutiny when members are hit with an increase in the cost of a valued service, but their organisation still appears to be spending on conferences, receptions, research pojects, expeditions, meets, grants etc.

In reply to Jim Hamilton: To an extent I agree, but i think its fair and accurate to say that these how the BMC decides its priorities are already member led. You'll have recieved your members survey and presumably replied to it before christmas? The BMC welcome by open invitation, your letters, emails comments or phone calls - if you feel strongly enough. Like all organisations, the BMC faces budget cuts and budget scruitiny, you would be legimitate in asking how they propose to reprioritise thier spending and in what areas. Just my opinion tho...

In reply to Andy Cairns:

Andy

You're right to point out the changes to annual multi-trip policies, namely the change in the individual trip limit from 93 to 45 days and the application of a maximum of 90 days of cover in total. We know that for the vast majority of our members these new limits provide more than adequate cover periods. The 45 day limit was an ACE requirement btw - this is apparently the norm in the Travel Insurance sector.

In previous years we've offered an extended cover option for trips beyond the 93 day limit. Last year an annual policy for European rock climbing with the extended cover option would have cost in the region of £270. This extended cover option was available only for the whole of the annual cover period, whereas we now offer single trip cover periods of up to 3, 6, 9 or 12 months, which can be purchased as top-ups to annual cover for those able to make trips exceeding the 45 day limit.

Many of our members have always required different levels of insurance cover at different times of the year; it wouldn’t be cost effective to take out annual worldwide cover for expedition climbing if you only undertook one six-week expedition during the course of the year and required lower levels of cover for your travel/activities at other times in the year. People are free to choose when to start and finish insurance policies, and we are able to provide additional flexibility by offering rebates on unused periods of cover when a someone wants to switch to a different policy.

There will no doubt be some members who see a significant rise in their insurance costs, but with the new options and rates we're still able to offer a range of options which meet the majority requirements.

***
Concerning your other query about the policy wording viz kit left in cars/tents - we've been in discussion with ACE about this today and we're hoping to able to resolve it so that the cover offered will be equivalent to the previous policy wording. We understood that this had been taken on board by ACE last week (when we raised it before the changeover) but it seems to have been overlooked. We'll keep you posted (I'm in a meeting at Plas uy Brenin tomorrow so won't be able to respond myself) - if we learn anything new Tony or Alex from the BMC office will post an update.

Cheers

Dave

Dave

Personally I'm wary of using BMC insurance since an incident in 2009 where I narrowly avoided death in an ice climbing accident, in the course of which I lost all the possessions and equipment that wasn't about my person - so I ended up with most of my kit missing and no sack, no phone, no money, no keys, etc. I contacted the helpline and was offered no assistance, and was told to sort myself out and make a claim when I got home. Putting premiums up for this level of service hardly endears me to renew my policy ...

Hi,

what I don't like about BMC's insurance is that (unless I've misunderstood) you are not allowed to insure just the period of your trek, but you have to purchase the policy for the whole trip, from the day you leave home to the day you are back...which makes quite expensive to combine a normal insurance with the BMC one.

In reply to musashi:

Why would you want a normal policy if you've already got a BMC one?

In reply to timjones:

I think he means a 4 week normal insurance with a 7 day climbing bit bolted into the middle....its what I needed but understand why it can't really work.