[Fultonius]

I have used most of the main insurance providers over the years and am still flabbergastered (yes!) that there's such a difference in costs for roughly similar insurance.

BMC worldwide, alpine and ski, annual cover: ~£400  (can't remember and can't e arsed getting a quote.
NKBV: Dutch alpine club (the lass is a member) : Membership plus insurance €81.50. (This induced TRAVEL insurance, i.e. effectively same cover as BMC as far as we can tell, just been going through the exclusions etc.) Of which €50 is membership.
Austrian Alpine Club: £51.50 but this is not travel, just membership and basic mountain rescue insurance.
CAF (French Alpine Club): From memory, around €140 for full worldwide rescue, medical and equipment, but not missed flights etc.

Why, oh why, oh WHY is the BMC so much higher?  I can only think that the Dutch must take it out as a matter of course since they always travel to go the mountains, but never claim? I guess repatriation costs are a low lower not being on an island....but STILL??!!

I can't help but think travel/rescue insurance would be much cheaper if it was included in the membership as standard?  I guess people in the UK wouldn't go for that as, in general, especially now with such a rightward lean in the national psyche.

Why should I pay for someone else's insurance that I won't use?

70,000 ish members, £30 each, £2,100,000 in the pot. How much does BMC insurance get in premiums each year and how much does it pay out in claims?

[lagerstarfish]

70,000 ish members, £30 each, £2,100,000 in the pot. How much does BMC insurance get in premiums each year and how much does it pay out in claims?

cough

Bare Gristle

cough

[shark]

70,000 ish members, £30 each, £2,100,000 in the pot. How much does BMC insurance get in premiums each year and how much does it pay out in claims?

cough

Bare Gristle

cough

Yes. It only takes one massive claim such as from the Master of Movement to blow the loss ratio.for the year.

Re surplus from insurance each year - that is disclosed in each set of accounts available on the website. The margin isn't amazing especially when internal costs are factored in so the opportunity to drive down the price is limited under the current set up.     

[Fultonius]

Without divulging anything too incriminating, what (roughly) would an annual premium have if everyone who was a member had to pay (obviously assuming the added cost didn't prevent anyone joining).

[shark]

Without divulging anything too incriminating, what (roughly) would an annual premium have if everyone who was a member had to pay (obviously assuming the added cost didn't prevent anyone joining).

Well that would be too revealing and it wouldn't wash. What grounds are there for a member who wasn't going on a trip that year subbing another who was? Subs raises are highly contentious even when the case for them is logical (i.e. keeping in step with inflation).

[Fultonius]

Well, that's exactly what many of the Alpine Clubs elsewhere in the world do... And their insurance is massively cheaper.

[HaeMeS]

NKBV insurance sure is special. Not like average travel insurance. It does cover practically every activity including basic travel, diving, ski-mountaineering, and all climbing and mountaineering, everywhere around the globe. Including the arctic... no Bare Gristle’s who’ve spoiled the party

There’s several reasons why the NKBV insurance is cheap:
- the insurance is a secondary insurance. A ‘normal’ travel insurance, if applicable, will have to pay for those parts of a claim that relate to ‘normal’ travel. Since the Dutch are the most heavily insured nation in the world a lot of people have ‘normal’ travel insurance as well as the ‘additional’ NKBV insurance.
- Health insurance in the Netherlands is pretty good actually and often covers most (all) of the medical costs, often including transportation back home.
- The insurance isn’t very profitable for the insurer.
- Dutch climbers, walkers, mountaineers aren’t reckless. Though there are more questionable claims these days (scared, ‘lost’, wanna go home, etc). Thankfully less due to mayor incidents.
- Members of NKBV will not claim as fast as the average populus (due to higher level of education and higher income).
- There is a limit to the amount a person can claim in case of a mountaineering rescue/accident.

For a lot of people the NKBV insurance is a key reason to be a member. It helps retaining members over a larger number of years and by doing so enables us to do more to support climbers/mountaineers/hillwalkers. If BMC could provide good insurance at a fair price (say £ 50,-/year) more people will join the BMC, which I believe is beneficial to the sport/access/etc.

[I’ll ask which percentage of members has insurance later today]

[shark]

Thanks HMS - any knowledge about what other federations do is very welcome.

Firstly just to mention that BMC individual membership includes liability and accident insurance as standard details here

It could be possible to include a basic travel insurance as part of the membership package but it would obviously increase the cost of membership which would be a risk to our main source of income if it led to an exodus. Another risk is that there is less control of the risk profile of those on the scheme. For example if membership was recommended by Saga to brittle geriatrics on trekking holidays in order to get the cover you could be creating a future bow wave of claims that could knacker the claims ratio. It's a difficult balancing act.

We did sell a stripped down cheaper travel insurance a few years ago but despite heavy promotion there was little take-up so was dropped.

[danm]

Something which springs to mind about why direct comparison between federations insurance offerings might be fallacious is the following: Almost by definition, to be a Dutch climber/mountaineer, you will be a traveller as the country is as flat as a pancake. Therefore, it could be assumed that almost all members will want travel insurance and rescue cover and making it part of the membership offer makes sense. That is far from the case with members of the BMC, many of whom only walk or climb in the UK and therefore have no requirement for such cover.

[Paul B]

One thing I'd love to see would be longer single trip insurance offered by the BMC. Not necessarily for myself anymore but I think it's important for it to be available (increasingly it isn't).

[HaeMeS]

In reply to Shark: true it's a difficult balancing act. I'm not that afraid of hi-risk people joining. The group of non-climbers/walkers/mountaineers most likely to join are the freeride skiers who have trouble finding an insurance which covers off-piste skiing. They are welcome to join. Their actual risk profile seems fairly OK, ie not that many people willing to risk an avalanche.

65% of members have NKBV insurance. Thought the percentage would be higher.

The Belgian 'BMC' has insurance included in the membership (for € 85,-). Skiing, mountainbiking, the Arctic and >6000m are not included in the basic policy.

[petejh]

Without divulging anything too incriminating, what (roughly) would an annual premium have if everyone who was a member had to pay (obviously assuming the added cost didn't prevent anyone joining).

Well that would be too revealing and it wouldn't wash. What grounds are there for a member who wasn't going on a trip that year subbing another who was? Subs raises are highly contentious even when the case for them is logical (i.e. keeping in step with inflation).

Genuine question, would they not be the same grounds as:
subbing other members to go on Summer and Winter International meets that you may never attend,
subbing production of a guidebook you may never end up buying,
subbing competitions you may never enter or watch,
subbing access work to crags you may never visit,
subbing the youth development of kids you may never meet,

?
 
(And presumably the same grounds as subbing the wages to fill a Manchester office full of people who may do work from which you may never directly benefit).

Isn't that what member organisations are for (or could be for)?

Regarding the Bear Grylls claim - is it not a reasonable risk-reduction policy for the BMC insurance to just preclude 'all tv personalities involved in any mainstream broadcasting industry work'. That's a group of people outside the direct interests of the BMC who I'd be happy not to be 'subbing'.

[shark]

Fair point Pete - I'd not thought about it that way. Maybe worth reviewing it when we are on a sounder financial footing.

[Paul B]

Regarding the Bear Grylls claim - is it not a reasonable risk-reduction policy for the BMC insurance to just preclude 'all tv personalities involved in any mainstream broadcasting industry work'. That's a group of people outside the direct interests of the BMC who I'd be happy not to be 'subbing'.

Isn't that the current case ('professionals' or some such term)?

[GraemeA]

Regarding the Bear Grylls claim - is it not a reasonable risk-reduction policy for the BMC insurance to just preclude 'all tv personalities involved in any mainstream broadcasting industry work'. That's a group of people outside the direct interests of the BMC who I'd be happy not to be 'subbing'.

Isn't that the current case ('professionals' or some such term)?

Pretty sure that the Barefaced Liar thing was a charity type thing, albeit of dubious aims, so was covered.

[Fultonius]

Shark, I hope this didn't just come across as BMC-bashing, more a genuine interest in how the eifferent proiders end up with such different premiums.

Re the Netherlands, it confirmed a few of my initial thoughts with regards to people taking it out as a matter of course and not claiming as much or as expensively. The Dutch are quite risk averse and all seem to go on various courses before even considering venturing away from the climbing wall.

[shark]

Having had some involvement it is a complicated area to get to the bottom of. We are examining the current set up which may lead to changes that could improve the surplus or lower premiums or ideally both but the decisions are nuanced rather than immediately obvious, to me at least, in terms of balancing risk, level of broker support, margins, sales and member benefit. Early days though.

[tomtom]

Having had some involvement it is a complicated area to get to the bottom of. We are examining the current set up which may lead to changes that could improve the surplus or lower premiums or ideally both but the decisions are nuanced rather than immediately obvious, to me at least, in terms of balancing risk, level of broker support, margins, sales and member benefit. Early days though.

This sounds like it could be straight from one of David Davis brexit speeches.

[shark]

My transition to humble bureaucrat is complete