I have found a novel solution to this problem... I will be the climber and my spouse will be the primary bread winner.

MoapaPk wrote:I'm curious about the actuarial support for this. There are about 30 deaths/year for all mountaineering in North America... and there must be x*10^5 people in NA who are "climbers." Mainly these deaths are not from technical climbing. In the USA alone, we currently have about 10 deaths/year/10^5 people just from driving.

Don't they break it down into "time spent doing said activity?" There might be x*10^5 climbers, but the amount of time those climbers spend climbing would be far less than the amount of time x*10^5 drivers spend driving. So any given hour spent climbing would put a person at more risk than an hour spent driving. I'm not sure, but I think not factoring in time is where people get the mistaken idea that driving is more dangerous than climbing and hence the refrain "I'm more likely to die on the way to the climb than on the climb".

mountainsandsound wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:I'm curious about the actuarial support for this. There are about 30 deaths/year for all mountaineering in North America... and there must be x*10^5 people in NA who are "climbers." Mainly these deaths are not from technical climbing. In the USA alone, we currently have about 10 deaths/year/10^5 people just from driving.

Don't they break it down into "time spent doing said activity?" There might be x*10^5 climbers, but the amount of time those climbers spend climbing would be far less than the amount of time x*10^5 drivers spend driving. So any given hour spent climbing would put a person at more risk than an hour spent driving. I'm not sure, but I think not factoring in time is where people get the mistaken idea that driving is more dangerous than climbing and hence the refrain "I'm more likely to die on the way to the climb than on the climb".

But the charge (to you) is averaged over years, and that's what should matter. The seconds you spend crossing intersections are more dangerous than the time spent driving on the straight; the insurance company doesn't care about that as long as it averages out to a low probability of death over the payment period. The insurance company is purely interested in making money; i.e. having the expectation from payouts lower than the money spent on policies.

If the insurance company calculates that the average expense from "climbing" adds 25% more to the average payout, they should simply charge 25% more for the policy.

Maybe it's too complicated and they just don't want to deal with it at all because of legal problems -- it's a lot easier to get unambiguous coroners' reports when the cause of death is common.

Yeah, I guess they only want to break it down so much. Imagine if you told them the routes you do are only moderate, with only brief periods of exposure and the rest was more or less hiking. It will be a while before we see the "Hardman Policy" vs. "First Ascensionist Policy" vs. "Class 3 or less peakbagger policy".

Here’s the more specific questions that were on the Farmer's New World Life Insurance follow-up questionnaire. I got these after I responded yes to a general question about “climbing”
1.Artificial Rock Wall, number of climbs in the past 12 months
a. Less than 5
b. 5 to 9
c. 10 or more

2. Caving or Potholing, number of climbs in the past 12 months
a. Less than 5
b. 5 to 9
c. 10 or more

3. Extreme Climbing (over 23,000 feet), number of climbs in the past 12 months
a. Less than 5
b. 5 to 9
c. 10 or more

4. Trail Climb/Trekking/Scrambling, number of climbs in the past 12 months
a. Less than 5
b. 5 to 9
c. 10 or more

5. Ice Climbing, number of climbs in the past 12 months
a. Less than 5
b. 5 to 9
c. 10 or more

6. Ice Climbing, maximum height of climbs:
a. Less than 5,000 ft.
b. 5,000 to 13,000 ft.
c. 13,001 to 23,000 ft.
d. More than 23,000 ft.

7. Rock Climbing, number of climbs in the past 12 months
a. Less than 5
b. 5 to 9
c. 10 or more

8. Rock Climbing, maximum height of climbs:
a. Less than 5,000 ft.
b. 5,000 to 13,000 ft.
c. 13,001 to 23,000 ft.
d. More than 23,000 ft.

9. Is future climbing activity being considered with no past or current climbing activity, provide dates and details.

10. What is your level of participation:
a. Ametuer
b. Professional

11. What geographical location do you climb in?
a. Africa
b. Asia
c. Alps
d. Himalayas/Karakoram
e. North America/Mt. McKinley
f. North America/elsewhere (please specify)
g. Other (please specify)

12. Are you a member of a climbing organization?
a. Yes
b. No.

13. Have you ever participated in any of the following or do you plan to do so in the future?
a. Free solo climbing
b. Climbing without a rope
c. Buildering (urban climbing)
d. None of the above.

If underwriters don't understand a risk, like climbing, they just throw a high premium at you knowing you probably won't pay it. You need to find an insurance company willing to take the time to understand the risk of climbing. If they understand the risk, they will price the policy appropriately. Last I heard Banner was dealing with climbers competitively. If you're old, and a climber (like me), it's probably best just to get a group policy at work. There are usually no questions asked there.

And you have to tell the truth or your widow and children may end up with a check that only returns the premiums you paid..

A long time ago I saw a ad in one of the climbing magazines for a guy who specialized in insuring climbers. You might check there.

It's been shown statistically that per hour of participation, most climbing activities are far more dangerous than driving.

BUT. Isn't the point of diversifying away risk to have premiums that are nearly the same for everyone in the pool? Some folks will be very low risk, and some will be very high, and the bulk will fall in the middle.

And yes, do not lie. You will be found out, and your family will receive no payout. What would be the point of that?

johngenx wrote:It's been shown statistically that per hour of participation, most climbing activities are far more dangerous than driving.

PER HOUR. Most people don't climb anywhere near as many hours as they drive per year, and the risk should be averaged over the payment period of the premiums. The questionnaire above makes it seem likely they are trying to be quantitative.

MoapaPk wrote:The questionnaire above makes it seem likely they are trying to be quantitative.

I read it more as a qualifier of sorts. If you answer 'yes' to a few of those questions, I'm pretty sure you're not going to be getting a policy (at any price). I think the questionaire is a start of a deeper conversation to determine exactly what kind of climber/hiker you are (and to determine the actual [relative] amount of risk you take).

Frankly, I think we're just not a very profitable demographic. In relation to other demographics, the climber demographic is small, tends to overstate thier abilities, does not understand the risk they themselves take, and can be prone to put themselves in situations where life and death is out of thier control. Further, I also would surmise that there is very little history/data with which to extrapolate any sort of probabilities into the future (versus, say car accidents or heart attacks).

I think some of the reasons above are why I enjoy climbing/hiking, but if I was an insurance underwriter, I think my boss would have me working on something else...

If you don't want coverage for a climbing related death, just resubmit the form and check No next to the climbing box. If you die while climbing , they won't cover it.

What I don't get is why they don't ask if you sit around watching TV. That's one of the most dangerous things people do. I wonder why don't they ask your body fat percentage, et al?

The Farmers questionaire makes sense...

Remember by answering questions or omitting information, you may be committing fraud and invalidating your policy. Its better that you find a policy that doesn't require you to answer that question. also check with an attorney... every state has different laws governing this, but states have laws that limit the term of high risk clauses (say you don't off yourself in two or five years in that activity ), but check with an attorney since the laws of each state vary.

Alpinist wrote:If you don't want coverage for a climbing related death, just resubmit the form and check No next to the climbing box. If you die while climbing , they won't cover it.

On the other hand, if you check the "no climbing" box, yet you do some climbing, in the event you die in circumstances otherwise covered by the policy, you might give the carrier an excuse to contest the validity of your policy based on having made misrepresentations or omissions in your application. Of course, they would need some evidence that you engaged in climbing. Just saying--you might leave your heirs having to do battle with the carrier.

On my last insurance renewal, they did a comprehensive physical that included my BMI, etc, etc. Got amazing results, and I pointed out the irony that my superb physical health, great diet, and no-smoking, etc, was so that I would be strong and fit for climbing, they didn't see the irony.

As for checking off "no" good luck with that. If you're killed in a car crash and they find out you were a climber, then your policy will be void, even if you didn't die while climbing. You lied, and that makes your entire application void.

Don't try to game insurance companies. You can't win.