Advanced search

equipment insurance

(27 Posts)
clam Wed 17-Feb-16 08:56:22

We've hired gear from Skiset and took out their loss/damage insurance.
Yesterday I fell (low speed, flattish run) and somehow, God knows how, Managed to snap both skis just in front of the bindings. From the incredulous looks on everyone's faces, this is almost impossible to do.

After a long and arduous trudge down the mountain, took them back to the shop and they have replaced them, but they want 130euros excess! This seems extortionate to me. Apparently the full amount without insurance would be 400.

Does anyone have any experience of this? Is this a standard amount or do I have any negotiation grounds? I'm wondering whether I might argue that they might have been faulty, as it really wasn't a gruesome fall. I was uninjured for a start (thank God!)

Have a rubbish internet reception here but will hopefully be back later.

Trickydecision Wed 17-Feb-16 23:10:10

Have you checked your general ski insurance? We never take out the shop cover because we seem to be covered for damage to hired equipment with an excess of £50, which would be better than €130 plus the shop original cover. If not, can you check the shop's T&Cs and see what excess is specified there?
What a nuisance; try googling the make and model to see if there have been other similar incidents, hence manufacturing fault.
Good that you are OK, though.

clam Thu 18-Feb-16 06:32:12

Had a brief look at travel insurance, but they pay out a sliding scale related to the age of the ski, and I've no idea how old they are (certainly not new though).

My current concern, having thought about it more, is why on earth the bindings didn't release. Surely they're meant to on impact? My legs could have snapped as easily as those skis did.
And that there is nowhere that I can see on the skiset website that highlights any excess, let alone such a high one. There was an A4 piece of paper taped to the wall behind the till in the shop, but not noticeable and anyway, we took out the insurance online.

Dostopmenow Thu 18-Feb-16 06:47:40

If we hire decent skis we pay the extra in the rental shop precisely for that reason. Did you sign anything? Did they set your bindings?
Sounds a bit fishy to me.

clam Thu 18-Feb-16 08:40:04

OK, so phoned Skiset head office and they say the shop are wrong and that there is nothing further to pay. If they persist, I'm to tell them to contact Head Office for verification. (Hope my French is up to that)

Trickydecision Thu 18-Feb-16 09:40:19

Well that's a relief about Head Office, but very worrying about the non release of the bindings. Any idea what they were set on? I think shops tend to set them too high, probably to prevent repeat visits when the skis come off too often. I have to insist on the setting I know I want and need, which is a 4, because without an ACR in one leg I need them to come off in a fall.
No way should skis break and the bindings stay put. They are lucky you are not suing them for negligence and hospital costs.

Trickydecision Thu 18-Feb-16 09:49:45

You have probably found this on the SKiset website, but I should think 'hidden defects' covers those skis.

If, despite the care that SKISET takes of their ARTICLES, the ARTICLE(S) delivered has (have) a hidden defect, the RENTER has additional legal rights according to Articles 1721 et sequens of the Civil Code.

Article 1721 of the Civil Code:
The lessee is due a guarantee for any defects or faults in the ARTICLE rented that prevent its use, and even if the lessor has no knowledge at the time of the lease.
If these defects or faults result in a loss for the lessee, the lessor is responsible for compensating the lessee”.

In conformance with Article 1721 of the Civil Code, SKISET is responsible for hidden defects in the ARTICLE(S) rented which make it (them) unfit for the intended use.

It is hereby specified that the ARTICLE(S) rented is (are) insured under conditions of normal use.

Guarantees are not applicable in case of normal wear of the ARTICLE(S) rented, incorrect use or poor maintenance.

In the event of a hidden defect, the RENTER benefits from an identical replacement of the defective ARTICLE, within the limit of available stocks.

If a replacement or repair is impossible, SKISET agrees to refund the rental price of the ARTICLE within 30 days on receipt of the ARTICLE returned by the RENTER to the address of the shop they selected at the time of the ORDER.

Trickydecision Thu 18-Feb-16 09:54:01

More useful:

This is on the Skiset FAQs:

First scenario: I've taken out breakage/theft insurance on the site
The insurance assumes responsibility for all costs; you have nothing to pay to the shop. For equipment theft, you must file a report with the police. At the shop, you will fill out a theft/breakage report.

clam Thu 18-Feb-16 11:03:35

Well fortunately, there were no hospital costs incurred, although I am paying close attention to all aches and pains in my right leg, which I broke 3 years ago. I have pins, plates and rods in it and I simply cannot believe I didn't jar them.

I found that second Skiset link this morning finally, once my wifi locked back in. Wish I'd seen it before!

Thanks tricky.

Trickydecision Thu 18-Feb-16 11:40:51

Hope the rest of the trip goes well and leg is OK.

clam Thu 18-Feb-16 14:43:01

Popped into Skiset just now for something else and I notice they have displayed one of my broken skis as some sort of trophy, with a notice advising people to take out insurance!
I should charge them commission!

Trickydecision Thu 18-Feb-16 14:54:06

We were brooding on your broken skis. In Jan I started out on some Heads, which I did not like; went into the shop to change and the nice guy found me a different pair and demonstrated their flexibility by bending them into an arc. No way should both your skis have snapped unless superhuman strength was applied to bend them. And thinking of all the crashes on Ski Sunday, have you ever seen skis broken? Skiers yes, skis no.
What make were they? (makes mental note to avoid)

clam Thu 18-Feb-16 16:46:12

Rossignol. The middling category on the website for intermediate skiers.

The bloke in the shop today said the bindings wouldn't necessarily release if it was a head-on impact. I suspect this is rubbish, and anyway, I collided with a wall of snow at the edge of the piste at an oblique angle.

I seem to have regressed in my skiing after 15 seasons. I'm now struggling to get down a blue slope; dh and dcs are shepherding me around like an old lady. Yesterday I fell off the chairlift on arrival at the top and today I keeled over for no reason and wrenched my shoulder! Am self-medicating with wine.

trixymalixy Thu 18-Feb-16 23:55:56

That's crazy. Skis shouldn't snap! They must have been faulty.

clam Fri 19-Feb-16 15:11:30

Here's the evidence:

Trickydecision Fri 19-Feb-16 16:33:46

I am surprised at the core of the skis. It looks more like chipboard rather than the flat layers of ply or some such that I would have expected.
Was the snow which you ran into particularly hard and solid? It's hard to tell from the pic; there is a lot of loose snow but obviously you would create that by the crash.

trixymalixy Fri 19-Feb-16 17:28:33

It's a foam core ski. Fairly common.

DH says that he broke one of his skis behind the binding s long time ago. That was on a dry slope though.

clam Fri 19-Feb-16 17:46:54

I should have thought that the mechanics of ski design would have vastly improved over the years.

The snow bank was softish in that you could bury a pole in it, but I suspect it was hard/icy underneath. The piste is actually a road/track in summer I think, and the bank of snow at the side could have been wedged up by the piste bashers.

Trickydecision Fri 19-Feb-16 17:51:37

I have just been googling foam core skis.I was not aware this construction existed, never mind was common. To be fair, criticism revolves around their losing their flexibility rather quickly, but I have not seen any reports of breakages. Though I suppose if Clam's had had heavy use and were less flexible, it might explain the snapping.

Trickydecision Fri 19-Feb-16 17:57:06

Well if it was one of those tracks used by vehicles in sumner it certainly would not have been very steep and like you say, Clam, you would not have been going fast, but it could well have had fairly solid sides masked by the snow so a glancing impact could have caused some damage, but surely not to the extent that you experienced.

clam Fri 19-Feb-16 18:52:24

I really wasn't going fast, as I'm pretty cautious these days since breaking my leg - not that I did that skiing, but nevertheless.

Just googled injuries sustained by bindings not releasing, and have had to stop! Horrific.

Anyway, I was very lucky. We're off out now for our last-night dinner, before a hideously early start tomorrow to get home.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Trickydecision Fri 19-Feb-16 18:56:33

The non-rełease of a bindng is why I am missng an ACL in my left leg.

Have a great evening out and a safe journey home.

clam Sun 21-Feb-16 10:35:22

Just to finish up, when I took the equipment back on Friday, the shop tried once again to charge me 130E. I stood my ground and they phoned "the boss" who agreed there was nothing to pay, but I had to trek down to the main branch in the resort with my passport to sign some sort of document.

I wonder how many people go ahead and pay this excess, however? In different circumstances, I might have done.

Trickydecision Sun 21-Feb-16 15:22:21

That is a very poor show, Clam. If you hadn't done the trek down, what woukd have happened?

clam Sun 21-Feb-16 23:30:25

Dunno. But I have penned an email to Skiset asking for an explanation as to why their employees are asking for payment for an excess that appears to be against company policy.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now