Resort liability/insurance

[ctenidae]

I work, or at least do until tomorrow, for the largest insurance company in the US, and, by most counts, the second largest in the world. We got a marketing email today saying we'll be offering liability coverage for ski resorts to handle claims from skiiers who run themselves into trees and off of cliffs, then sue the resort.
My question is this- how responsible for their patron's actions do you think the resorts should be held? If someone is on marked, open trails and wipes out, breaking their neck, how liable should the resort be? How about if they're off piste? In the terrain park?
Keep in mind, this insurance won't be cheap, and the cost will be passed on to us, the consumers.

 

[freeheelwilly]

Your whole ridiculous post and poll are slanted. And geeze, you work for an insurance company, surprise, surprise :roll: . This is a perfect example of insurance companies attempting to poison the public's view of anybody who sues any company for anything...ever! Look at the second option: You're already down to making it an issue of "enforcing the rules". What about about obvious acts of ski resort negligence like putting a rope across a trail in the wrong spot where it can't be seen until the last second, or leaving people stranded on a chair lift over night, or not properly servicing or maintaining lift equipment that directly leads to trajedy. The list of obvious actions of ski resort negligence could go on and on. Although rare, these things do happen- but you wouldn't know it from your poll. According to your poll, the most egregious thing a ski area could do is fail to properly enforce its rules. WHAT A CROCK! F'n insurance companies. According to them, EVERYBODY who sues is just a careless, crybaby who wants to blame somebody else for their own stupidity. I think for the most part, resorts do an excellent job of keeping people safe. The sport is inherently dangerous and those that partake assume the risk. But the risk of what? Not ski resort stupidity! F'n insurance companies: They'd much rather collect premiums then pay claims; so much more profitable that way! Sorry about the rant, but this INSURANCE COMPANY PROPAGANDA (that's all it is) is really startin' to chap my ass!!

 

[riverc0il]

:angry:

insurance is legalized gambling at the highest level and this culture of sueing other people because you're not responsible for yourself and your own actions shows how irresponsible our society is.

 

[freeheelwilly]

OK rivercOil, you completely missed my point so I'll make it so simple even you can grasp it: The brain dead liftie turns off the lift for the night leaving you dangling in sub zero temps. They find you in the morning and rush you to the hospital and start loppin' off fingers and toes. Stop your F'n whinin'! It's your own fault! You should have had a rope and harness with you! Another: Your child comes around a blind corner and is killed because a rope has been strung across the trail and there is absolutely no time to respond. They could have put the rope 100 feet further away but, for whatever reason, they didn't. Shut up and go bury your kid!! It was her fault!!! Don't blame us!

Your tolerance for pain and suffering is amazing, just as long as it's somebodyelses.

Don't give me this crap about personal responsibility! Who the hell can disagree with that. But don't the resorts have any responsibility? Or does that end at the ticket counter!? Gimme a friggin' break!

 

[ctenidae]

Wow, my point got missed entirely.
What I was trying to get across was that we all end up paying for the careless yahoos that don't take care of themselves. The resorts alread have insurance that covers them if they screw up. The new program is to cover the resort when it gets sued for something that is not in any reasonable way their fault. Since that is happening more and more frequently, the resorts need the coverage more and more, which means we all have to pay more to ski.
I do (or do until 5 o'clock today) work for an insurance company, but I have some serious issues with the influence those companies have on our lives. Trouble is, juries see that resorts have insurance, and won' be directly paying the settlements, so they let anyone sue successfuly for anything. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Greg]

OK rivercOil, you completely missed my point so I'll make it so simple even you can grasp it:

Spare us the unnecessary insults! :x

 

[Vortex]

I like it here cause not alot of agressive back and forth. Other sites go at one and another. Good points can be mellow. :beer:

 

[David Metsky]

The new program is to cover the resort when it gets sued for something that is not in any reasonable way their fault.

Exactly how do you determine that it's not reasonably the Ski Area's fault?

To one person, failing to mark a hazard after it has been reported to ski patrol is a fault. To someone else, that's just the breaks of skiing. Since there is no external scale to determine fault other than the court system you have insurance and lawsuits.

It would be best to agree on the issues before you start talking about the solution.

-dave-

 

[tree_skier]

Skiers fault there should be no liability i.e skiing into natural or man made obstructions (you are supposed to be in control), getting lost, losing equipment etc. Yes I did break my arm as a child when i skied into a obstruction and no one got sued.


Resorts fault then they should be liable. i.e chair falls off lift, run over by groomer/snowmobile, left on lift overnight etc.

 

[GadgetRick]

I'll chime in...

Ok, it's gotten ugly around here but I'd like to chime in.

I'm a volunteer patroller for a mountain. I can tell you the mountain I work for is very careful about the mountain and how things are marked, how it's managed and maintained. I also see a lot of people get hurt (unfortunately) because, as it's been pointed out, sking is a dangerous sport. There are disclaimers all over the place (read the back of the paper your lift ticket is stuck to or just read a copy of the Skiers' Responsibility Code). With all of that said, there are things on mountains which can cause injuries as well.

Anyway, it is very difficult to decide (in some cases) whether the mountain (for lack of a better term) is at fault or if it's, "just the breaks." There are many lawsuits against just about any moutain and, honestly, many of them I've heard about are ridiculous. If someone cuts you off and you hit a tree you could say, "The Ski Patrol should have cut that guy's ticket!" However, if we're not there to see it and it hasn't been reported to us (or it has and we can't find the guy) how can you hold a ski resort liable for something like this? There are lawysuits like this and they cost the resort money--even if it gets thrown out of court.

On the other side, you're skiing along and there's a rock protruding from the trail just below a drop and you didn't see it until it was too late so you banged yourself pretty badly. Well, this is something we're supposed to mark so you could make a good case the resort didn't do its job of making a (relatively) safe environment.

Then you have someone who's on skis for the first time. They head to the top of the mountain with their friends. Their friends tell them, "Don't worry, we'll get you down fine!" So they start off down a double black diamond. The newbie skier loses control, smacks into a tree and almost dies. Well, one could ask why the mountain staff didn't stop them before heading down and someone else could ask why they were up there at all.

As you can see there are a lot of ways someone can get hurt and you can never generalize who's fault it is. Do I think insurance to help protect a mountain from lawsuits which have no merit. Well, it's probably not a bad idea if it's priced reasonably. However, sometimes having insurance just gives people a reason to sue. So I'm a little mixed on the whole idea and would need a lot more information on the type of policy before saying yes or no.

Anyway, how about we all just act like grownups around here. If someone doesn't like insurance companies, that's fine but we don't need to sling insults around here. Nobody likes that kind of a discussion.

 

[riverc0il]

OK rivercOil, you completely missed my point

i respect your point, but it wasn't even a consideration in the fact that i was stating my own. carry on...

 

[riverc0il]

to clarify my previously taken position of being annoyed with the over litigeousness of the ski world, if the resort botches something that causes injury such as stranding someone on a lift over night or running someone over with a groomer, by all means they should be held responsible. otherwise, it's just law suits driving up the price of skiing. ctenidae, if that program would help reduce the cost of insurance for ski areas which would help allow ski areas to reduce pricing, that by all means it sounds like an excellent plan. but DM makes a valid point about what would constitute fault. i think it should be easier for fault to be determined when the ski area "does something harmful" rather than does not do something that results in harm (which is harder to determine fault, inaction is hard to measure and where the gray area comes into play).

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

I think looking strictly at the title of the post, there's the potential for an interesting discussion. I don't thinkanyone would argue that ski areas should not be liable for the actions of their Owners, management, employees and agents (read: volunteer patrollers, "ambassedors", etc.)

I don't have a lot of interest in skiing at an area with "Ski cops" telling everyone what is and is not acceptable skiing. I have even less interest in being in "Skiing SS".

I generally avoid crowded areas with a lot of reckless behavior. (Wachusett come to mind). If I happen to be there, I try to avoid being on the slope "when the toilet flushes" as a friend likes to say. I also don't stop on the hill. Better yet, I have more options as to when I can ski and I avoid weekends like the plague.

I think RIck hit on a number of situations that illustrate what a box of worms this can turn into. If a guest does something stupid (skis terrain above his ability, hucks blindly off a cliff, etc.) I think most, not all of us would say, hey, too bad. If the mountain is negligent, say a drunken cat operator runs over a ski school class with the tiller down while lighting his crack pipe, I'd guess that most us would say that the mountain has some financial responsablity.

WHen you talk about the behavior of guests and how it effects the safety of other guests, this is where it gets interesting. The more the mountain intervenes to help "manage the risk", the more restrictive the atmosphere becomes.

I don't care for an area that marks every single peeble, bumpstick or thin patch with 'boo. I certainly don't like to be told to slow down.

Insurance is a necessity to help area's manage their exposure. If they had to "self-insure", we really wouldn't be able to afford to ski.

 

[riverc0il]

If the mountain is negligent, say a drunken cat operator runs over a ski school class with the tiller down while lighting his crack pipe, I'd guess that most us would say that the mountain has some financial responsablity.

:lol:

 

[Greg]

Re: I'll chime in...

Ok, it's gotten ugly around here but I'd like to chime in.

I'm not aware of too many threads that have been confrontational lately. Don't lose faith, Rick!

Anyway, how about we all just act like grownups around here. If someone doesn't like insurance companies, that's fine but we don't need to sling insults around here. Nobody likes that kind of a discussion.

Agreed. Let's all please remain respectful of others' opinions and thoughts. This forum has always remained very civil and I intend to keep it that way. There are plenty of other forums where folks can flame, troll and post cliquey inside jokes. This ain't one of them.

 

[freeheelwilly]

ctenidae wrote: "The new program is to cover the resort when it gets sued for something that is not in any reasonable way their fault. "

If it's not in any reasonable way their fault the case is dismissed on a motion and a jury never even gets to consider it. On the other hand if it's a closer question it goes to a jury. We've been doin' it this way for hundreds of years. No reason to stop now just because Allstate lost alot of $$ in the dot.com stock bubble. As I post this, 60% of you think it's NEVER the resort's fault. EVER!! You don't even want to hear the facts! If that's not proof that insurance companies have managed to get in John Q. Public's head on this issue, I dunno what is. Way to go ctenidea! You and the rest of the insurance company goons keep spinnin' this thing all to way to your real goal: TORT REFORM! Lets cap plaintiff's damages at ten bucks and make it ILLEGAL to sue in the first place unless you've won the Congressional Medal of Honor. (Oh and I'm sure lift ticket prices will just plummet then! :roll: ) Get a clue folks, you're being sold something here and you don't even know it.

And Greg: Ban me if you want. In the meantime I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em. Sometimes civility is overrated :wink:

 

[Greg]

And Greg: Ban me if you want. In the meantime I will continue to call 'em as I see 'em. Sometimes civility is overrated :wink:

And FHW, I would hope you can be mature enough to "call 'em as you see 'em" without unnecessarily insulting other members here.

 

[ctenidae]

Okay, now I'm seeing some discussion I was hoping to see.
A couple of points I'd like to mention- Most important, I'm not an "insurance company goon." I worked in the collections department of a non-admitted comapny, so my contact with the insureds was, by law, exactly zero. I gained nothing from the policies written by my company. I did, however, see the premiums written, and have access to the claims made. What I saw were extremely high premiums in general, with some pretty ridiculous claims made. There's no doubt insurance companies are in business to make money. It'd be pretty stupid for them to exist otherwise. The problem is the amount of influence they have over what the public does or thinks. Second, I'm not all for tort reform. I think the courts ought to have more lattitude in deciding what makes it to a jury, but I'm against capping damages as a final solution.
Overall, I see the issue coming down to personal responsibility, and not as espoused by the GOP. I don't believe corporations should be held blameless as a rule. I do believe the claimants should be considered first as the cause of the problem. The McDonalds Coffee case is a fine example of the system actually working right. The jury awarded the lady (I believe) $4M for spilling coffee in her lap under what most people agree were stupid circumstances. It was then reduced considerably becasue the woman was to a large extent to blame, because the spill resulted from her own actions. Yes, McDonalds held their coffee at too high a temperature despite many warnings, and that's why they were held to blame. The woman held a cup of coffee with no lid between her legs, though, so the award was reduced substantially. The problem I have is with a ski resort being held 80% responsible for a kid breaking his neck trying tricks he couldn't do. I don't see why we should all have to pay for the kid's own mistake.

Last but not least, I have to say, civility is never, ever, overrated. If we were all more careful, both in what we say, and how we take what others say, the world would be a much better place.

 

[freeheelwilly]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! When in doubt, pull out the ol' McDonald's Case and get some more mileage out of that. Hahahaha! You couldn't script this any better. Sure you're not an insurance company goon!

"I think the courts ought to have more lattitude in deciding what makes it to a jury.." What does that mean??? They already act as gatekeepers for much of this stuff and, again, have been doing so for hundreds of years! What, we're gonna come up with some whole new system 'cus you've looked at a couple claims forms and decided that some of them are silly! Guess what happens to truly silly cases that juries consider? That's right: NO CAUSE and the plaintiff walks home with nothing! Been that way a long time. Let's leave it that way. Again, this all started because of your lopsided, bull shit "poll". You meant to start this whole thread in order to reinforce in people's heads: "Remember, never, never, sue unless your an irresponsible greedy bastard!" Why else would you have started that poll!? Is this really a topic that interests you in your off time?

Glad I was here to wreck it for ya.

Listen, insurance performs a vital social function by allowing people to voluntarily assume a little inconvenience in their lives (in the form of premiums) in exchange for not having to worry about a catastrophic loss; either to themselves or to another as a result of their negligence. It's been around for a loooong time and is, without a doubt, one of the most useful commercial devices yet created without which business never would have got much beyond bartering fish for raccoon pelts. Do we have a "blame others" society? Yes, we do! But it's not because of our tort system which has been around a lot longer than this "blame others" BS. The tort system, and many other institutions, are unfortunately there to occasionally enable the whiners. But juries see whiners for what they are. Juries are incredible, they sort through all the bullshit and more often than not, get it right. Don't throw out a system that's worked so well for so long. Too many REAL claimants with REAL injuries and REAL claims will get thrown out with it. And that's just fine with the insurance companies, 'cus they don't want to pay anybody, anything, anytime.

Our system is not broken folks!! That's insurance company dogma! Your lift tickets are not too expensive because of "frivilous lawsuits". That's insurance company dogma.

Greg, why don't you show some real balls and just take this whole stupid "poll" down? It's a disgrace! Your site has clearly been hijacked by the insurance lobby. Just look at that "poll" again!! It's either NEVER the resort's fault or maybe they could do a better job enforcing the rules. Those are your two choices. That's it - That's the worst thing a resort could do, according to that poll: Fail to enforce rules. Come on! This site should be for skiers to post about skiing, not for the insurance industry to brainwash people.

I'm goin' skiin. And if the crack smokin' liftie screws up and hurts me, guess what? I'm suin' the bastards!

 

[Greg]

FHW:

1. Watch the language.
2. Don't tell me how to admin these forums.
3. Don't be so paranoid. I don't think any insurance companies are trying to infiltrate this little message board... :roll: If anyone in this thread seems like they have some sort of agenda, it's you.