[filipaame]

Hey, I've been trawlling the internet for travel insurance without much luck.
My boyfriend and I are off to Squamish in August for 3 weeks of bouldering, sport and trad. We need travel insurance that covers all of these, and our first port of call would've been BMC, however we now live in the Netherlands and their policy clearly states only UK residents can apply.

Does anyone have any suggestions?
The only one I've seen so far are these guys: http://www.hccmis.com/travel/adventure-travel/rock-climbing/
but I'm not really sold...

Any help greatly appreciated!

[T_B]

Dogtag have recently extended their cover to non-UK residents.

https://www.dogtag.co.uk/

Travelex will also insure you for climbing etc.

[fatneck]

Just sorting insurance for a trip to Font in a week or so and have previously always used the BMC but just had a quote for £30 which feels well pricy!!

Do I;

• Tweet Bear Grylls and call him a twat and play the £30?
• Go with a quote from a random not climbing specific insurer via the Meerkats at about £6
• Who gets insurance these days? Stop being a pussy...

[Richie Crouch]

I was considering option 3 for the first time and sticking to good landings! 

[T_B]

You're more likely to have an accident in Font than anywhere I reckon.

You'll get a bill for an ambulance, and potentially any surgery you need if you break an ankle/wrist. Plus repatriation. The EHIC only covers you for initial patching up.

Obvs you want cover for bouldering, so a cheapo basic travel policy on-line is not much use.

TGIC and Dogtag are likely to be cheaper than BMC.

[sxrxg]

Think £30 is about the going rate. Just be thankful you haven't spent any nights in hospital recently or your son has had a recent operation... the price goes through the roof (and the BMC will not cover for it at all!)

If you want an alternative to the BMC you could try www.sportscoverdirect.com, they seem to have good grasp of what bouldering/climbing is from speaking to the them and they also will consider pre existing medical conditions on a case by case basis without the prices ramping up too much.

[dave]

I have also used holidaysafe and snowcard in the past for cover.

Lets face it 30 bananas is fuck all compared to the cost of the ferry or eurotunnel, the cost of accommodation, the cost of the food and beer you'll drink when you're over there, the cost of petrol, and the cost of rockshoes, I'm constantly amazed that climbers, other than ones actually on the dole, baulk at paying a nominal sum for insurance.

But yes, Bear Grylls is a cunt.

[fatneck]

Thanks for the advice peeps! BMC works out the cheapest out of Dogtag, sportscoverdirect and TGIC...

[WillRobertson]

I've used Club Direct before (from memory "bouldering with pads" was included as standard), and they were very helpful after my girlfriend (same insurance) broke her ankle in Font. It looks like you can only get travel insurance through their sister company Columbus Direct now, but they may be worth a look.

We definitely paid a lot less than 30 squids for 8 days in Font.

[remus]

While we're griping about the cost of insurance...

I bought a year policy from the BMC for europe but had a trip to rocklands planned so thought Id just pay the difference to upgrade to a worldwide for the 2 months left on the policy. 120 fucking smackeroos later I was suitably fucked off.

1 year europe policy = £128
1 year worldwide policy = £182
5 week standalone worldwide policy = £129

10 months europe + 2 months worldwide = £250!

[HaeMeS]

Not directly related to the original question, but why these absurd prices for insurance in the UK? I work for the Dutch equivalent of the BMC and our worldwide, one year, covers_everything_except_aerial_sports insurance policy for our members costs € 30,75/year. Skiing, snowboarding, diving, expeditions, normal holidays, etc included. And worldwide really means worldwide. The only catch is a 46 day limit to what is considered a single trip, but insurance for longer trips can be bought for a fair sum. 

Please enlighten me. 

[T_B]

In my experience* the insurance industry just doesn't 'get' risk in the outdoors. You would think that the more 'risky' activities (based on claims history), or activities where expensive helicopter evacuation is now the norm (i.e. trekking anywhere in Nepal) are the one's that attract a higher premium, but I'm not sure that's the case.

Simple example: The price of a single trip policy is based on the number of days. So, an 17-day Everest Base Camp policy is cheaper than a 20-day one. Yet the person doing the longer Everest Base Camp itinerary is less likely to suffer from altitude sickness and need evacuated. Most trekkers are evacuated due to altitude-related problems, which lessen the more time you take.

*I used to sell travel policies for worldwide mountaineering and trekking.

[Johnny Brown]

Not directly related to the original question, but why these absurd prices for insurance in the UK? I work for the Dutch equivalent of the BMC and our worldwide, one year, covers_everything_except_aerial_sports insurance policy for our members costs € 30,75/year.

Well for starters I'm guessing a celebrity member didn't use it to get themselves evacuated from a tv shoot in Antarctica?

More generally though insurance in the UK is expensive, I think due to a lot of borderline fraudulent claims (whiplash etc) which in turn people think they are owed due to the cost of the insurance. Spiralling litigation culture...

Climbing is not immune to this - I know a few folk who have reported a bag stolen (with full rack inside natch) just to collect a cash binus on their return. At least one of them was sponsored so hadn't even paid for his rack in the first place.

[T_B]

I doubt the current premiums are a hangover from the Bear Grylls claim. That was years ago.

Ten years or so ago the BMC aggressively marketed a cheap/discounted insurance policy (an obvious marketing ploy). It was too cheap. It pushed others out of the market and then lo and behold, they increased their premiums when presumably the claims exceeded the income. By that point we'd laid off a member of staff as we could no longer compete. BMC members got used to unrealistically cheap premiums for a couple of years. Now some of the premiums are eye-wateringly expensive and it's not always obvious why that is (see my post above).

On a positive note, after the Nepal earthquake when our stupid foreign office were continuing to advise against travel to areas of Nepal that had literally not been affected at all, the BMC helped maintain confidence in travel as they said they would cover everyone even if the FO advice was against "all but essential" travel. The travel advice was lifted just before the autumn season.

The BMC should publish their claims history. It would be in the interest of its members would it not?

[Steve R]

People get insurance to go bouldering 

[HaeMeS]

Thanks T_B. We've had our BG moment. Except it was an 8000 m peak and not Antarctica. And yes, insurers are pretty clueless about what is really risky (i.e.a single incident is perceived as symptomatic) and know little about the sport bout , but cooperate with us to make sure the insurance policy remains a fair product. Lucky us/our members...

[remus]

People get insurance to go bouldering 

Seemed a decent idea in rocklands when the troops of people with lower leg injuries all hobble past!

[spidermonkey09]

I'm going to Brisbane in April for some work, then having a few weeks at Arapiles after. Ideally I would get some insurance for these two weeks but am getting a bit stuck. Both BMC and Snowcard seem to suggest that I need to take out the relevant climbing cover from the time I leave the UK. Obviously I don't need this and its miles more expensive to cover myself for 5 weeks rather than 2.5...anyone else been in a similar position or do I have to suck it up?

[Paul B]

Have you tried calling them up to see if there's anything they can do?

[spidermonkey09]

I have emailed them and am awaiting a response. I'm not optimistic though given that this is from the BMC FAQ section:

Q: I'm going on a long trip but only going rock climbing for one week, can I take out cover just for that week?
A: No. You must take out cover for the entire trip, taking into account all activities likely to be undertaken. So, if you were travelling for one year, but doing just one climb in Thailand and spending the rest of the time on the beach, you’d still need ‘Rock’ cover for the entire time.

[Paul B]

Yeah that sounds pretty clear cut. Next option; take out an annual policy with Snowcard and increase the maximum trip limit to cover you?

[spidermonkey09]

That might work. Good thinking, cheers!

[Bradders]

I think the advice in the FAQ is geared towards ensuring you're covered for both general travel / other activities and rock climbing, e.g. someone could say well I only need a week's cover for when I'm climbing, then have something happen the week before (flight cancellation or whatever) and not be covered. And the simplest approach is to just have it all under one single policy as they advise.

The key bit is making sure you have coverage for the relevant periods and activities, so if you already have general travel insurance say through your bank account, that will be fine for the period you're not climbing, and you can then take out a specific policy covering when you're climbing. You just have to be aware that if something goes wrong outside of the time you've taken out the climbing related policy, you can't claim against it (obviously).

[abarro81]

Is that really true? Given it's a restriction in the terms, I'd was under the understanding they'd use it as a loophole to avoid paying out for anything... i.e., your policy would be void from the word go (like if you failed to disclose a pre-existing medical condition - I think they can void the policy even if a claim doesn't relate to the condition itself?)

[spidermonkey09]

Common sense dictates it should be as Bradders says, but considering this is insurance companies we are talking about ( ) I always thought it was as Barrows says...