|
| ljubitelj gora15. 10. 2010 18:39:43 |
Don't hold me too much to the words, but Bojan_A wrote that he has to pay 1450 euros for rescue costs, because he got stuck somewhere in the Skutina wall some time ago.
Does anyone have a source, when did they adopt this?
But if it's true I'm horrified by the adopted proposal, alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts why do they get free treatment, of course at the expense of the insurance, but OK, anyway Slovenia is the land of thieves, tycoons, illogic, ....
|
|
|
|
| gams4415. 10. 2010 18:46:26 |
What about rine in skuto if he doesn't know where it will rain in? It seems to me that's the truth; my friend got tangled in Špik, also paying.
|
|
|
|
| Iguana15. 10. 2010 19:13:56 |
Or doesn't additional insurance for extreme sports exist? If I'm not mistaken it also covers rescue costs.
I agree that on one side there are plenty of thieves, tycoons and absurdities, but nevertheless, when it comes to paying insurance for property, personal insurance, everything is too expensive, when an accident happens then.......????
|
|
|
|
| šerpa16. 10. 2010 08:57:52 |
Question if Bojan_A is a member of PZS with paid annual membership?
Insurance within PZS membership for e.g. B members covers rescue costs in our mountains up to 2,800 EUR via Tilia insurance. But the process is not automated like car insurance. After the accident, you need to fill out a form called "accident report" and deliver it with all additional required documentation to PZS, which then handles it further with the insurer.
As the recipient of the rescue service, Bojan-A is also the only one obligated to pay the rescue costs, meaning he has to pay the claimed amount from his own pocket. Then insurances are settled if insured. Of course, he is then the beneficiary of the insurance payout, meaning the money goes into his pocket and covers the hole from when he previously paid the rescue from his own pocket.
I'm interested if they paid with the friend each 1,450 EUR for the rescue? If the rescue cost 2,900 EUR total, then it means that the insurance with B membership at PZS no longer covers the costs even for such, I'd say fairly simple rescue action. PZS should definitely think about increasing the insurance amount at least within "B" membership.
|
|
|
|
| BT8816. 10. 2010 09:34:55 |
Yeah if they go on foot (without helicopter) then it's free or how much do they charge per hour.
|
|
|
|
| JusAvgustin16. 10. 2010 09:45:40 |
There's no catch in it at all! They could have decided differently and bivouacked in the wall (given the gear they had bad option) waited till next morning and descended, they called helicopter or GRS and they came to their aid, anyway who are we to blame someone now who got into serious trouble. Thank God it turned out that way. Anyone can call GRS, they come to rescue wherever possible. I don't advocate the bill, even less that he has to pay the costs himself, but that's how it is. Unfortunately!
|
|
|
|
| šerpa16. 10. 2010 09:54:15 |
Given the stepmotherly attitude of the state towards GRS, we also have to understand that without money they can't rescue either.
I'm more in favor of everyone insuring appropriately and thus avoiding dipping into their own pocket.
Otherwise I think we haven't reached the point yet where they ask you about insurance and money before they go to rescue you. Supposedly that's the practice in the much-praised Alpine Club areas or neighboring foreign countries. When that starts happening, then we can really worry.
|
|
|
|
| BT8816. 10. 2010 09:59:49 |
Yeah, who knows how much the INFANTRY costs per hour or not?
|
|
|
|
| panda16. 10. 2010 10:32:43 |
Yes, when the helicopter with team comes for a dead hiker/mountaineer, they don't bill the relatives but the rescue is on the budget. WTF? So they fleece the living. Then the answer is obvious, why didn't the two hikers under Mlinarsko sedlo call for help. Where is the line, will you call for help or not? Only the one who finds himself in a hopeless situation knows that, and can still think with a clear head (if it still works) that he might pay the costs himself. Paradox upon paradox. Some things can't be understood just like that, since it's different from case to case. Sometimes the saying "trust everything and into your own horse" holds as the best solution, sometimes it fails. No offense, this is just my subjective opinion.....Sometimes it's smart not to go where we're not grown up to. And we can always decide if it's the desire for self-proof that drives us there, how far we can go? Sometimes it ends well, not always? If everyone had an answer to that, there would be no rescues at all. Who knows why this happens to us......? 
|
|
|
|
| 100jan16. 10. 2010 11:43:06 |
Why do you have to pay, you had a licensed guide after all.
|
|
|
|
| viharnik16. 10. 2010 12:16:00 |
Although Bojan luckily wasn't injured, he avoided the worst under Skuta and was safely brought to the valley. But I think one life is worth much more than some paper euros. We are living beings, money isn't.
In this context I remember an older gentleman who didn't have a vignette on his car. Of course the inspectors caught him soon, because he won't have the car long and will replace it. He comes to the used car seller, who tells him that in Slovenia apparently you can get a perfect fake on the black market too, and that he's sorry because the gentleman had such bad luck. But he kindly softly says back to the seller: We are important, people and not vignettes and police. I'm not worried at all!. Seller laughing back: And you're right, man is important...
|
|
|
|
| šerpa16. 10. 2010 12:23:14 |
Yes, it's good to know the insurance conditions in these insurances. I browsed these conditions a bit and found an interesting case - Tilie's accident insurance for "A" PZS members in the valid insurance conditions "NEZ-07", 21st indent, 3rd paragraph, 6th article excludes altitude sickness as an accident, which means that in case of rescue due to altitude sickness they are not obliged to pay the insurance. Altitude sickness in slightly higher mountains, which "A" membership also covers, is a very common extremely life-threatening phenomenon or problem among hikers. If you know this clause, you just break the affected person's finger - then there will be no problems with insurance payout. Slip or intentionally inserted clause?
|
|
|
|
| Jure S16. 10. 2010 12:28:47 |
Let me also give my opinion.
Recently on this forum there was a debate about the Alpine School, where Bojan_A also said his, that he'll go another time.
What was he doing on such a demanding route without the necessary knowledge of climbing such routes.
Personally I enrolled in the Alpine School this year. What I want to say. I want to say this, that if Bojan_A made the decision to climb this route without the necessary knowledge, now he should man up and accept paying this bill
It's right like that and let it stay so in the future. I'm also happy for Bojan_A that it all ended happily for him and the rescuers.
Best regards, Jure
|
|
|
|
| viharnik16. 10. 2010 12:29:00 |
Šerpa, maybe Tilija insurance company sets its own rules despite A insurance, because 20 years ago I had big, long-lasting half-year problems with payout of vehicle damage, despite my indisputable procedure. I think even now this insurance hasn't got a good reputation.
|
|
|
|
| šerpa16. 10. 2010 12:46:44 |
Unfortunately I also hear more complaints than praises about this insurance company.
Compared to car insurance it's a similar slip, when the insurance covers only direct damage from hitting wildlife, which means if after the collision you drove into a ditch and smashed half the car, according to them they don't cover those indirect damages.
|
|
|
|
| ugn16. 10. 2010 14:22:22 |
in no case can any insurance cover damage in case there was no accident. That would be against the concept of insurance and would offer endless abuse possibilities and would be cost-insustainable because of that. Imagine (hypothetically), someone climbs in Skuta and decides he doesn't feel like it anymore and wants to go home by helicopter... of course he concluded appropriate insurance before...
|
|
|
|
| Jaša16. 10. 2010 14:36:10 |
BT88
GRS guys are volunteers. The costs that are incurred are mainly due to the helicopter.
And no, you can't say let them come pick you up on foot. Depending on available resources and the seriousness of the situation, they provide assistance.
I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for these words, but I'm pretty sure... if not, let someone correct me!
It's sad that for less important tasks, sometimes even priority ones, neither insurance companies nor civilians get involved. It's covered without issues from the state budget.
P.S.
Don't pour too much bile, because it's not worth it.
|
|
|
|
| ljubitelj gora16. 10. 2010 14:40:28 |
Wrongly represented, so if you're injured you have free rescue, if you get stuck climbing, you pay the rescue costs yourself.
I'm relieved
|
|
|
|
| Jaša16. 10. 2010 14:50:50 |
assuming you had appropriate gear, you don't get pumped,...
Otherwise in chess, when "mate" is approaching it's a win to force "stalemate" (stay safe without descent options).
Best,
and may the GRS guys have as many peaceful days without calls as possible...
|
|
|
|
| Bojan_A16. 10. 2010 20:43:33 |
Everything you said mostly holds true.
But I can't agree with Jure S who accuses me of going climbing without proper knowledge. True, I don't have an alpinist certificate, but my partner did. By rules two trainees can't climb together, but a combination can. Actually, I'm not lacking knowledge, just the paper. What counts here? Depends on whom - you'll say.
As for my further involvement in mountains, I don't know yet. I've realized that alpinism is a very dangerous sport where you can never guarantee 100% safety.
|
|
|
|
| Jaša16. 10. 2010 20:49:02 |
Just so we clear it up for good...
Did you go to the insurance company, and what was the answer? Does that up to 2800€ coverage apply or not in this case?
(if you're not a PD member, no need to reply)
best
|
|
|
You must log in to post a comment:
If you do not yet have a username, you must first
register.