Lots of Rescues - Taking Stock

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Maddy said:
If the hiker was not deemed "negligent" would h/she still be charged?

Non sequitur. :confused: Negligence was not part of the cost-of-rescue question... Did you mean something else?

As a direct answer to your question, I suspect not as the law change is to lower the bar for cost recovery from reckless to negligent. If you're not negligent, I don't see how can they charge you.

Tim
 
Yep, the Globe is behind an undefined standard describing winter essentials...which are undefined....in locations...which are undefined.

A real hard-hitting editorial there.
 
Negligence Standard, F&G Funding and Insurance

I am not sure what the answer is. Legistators will seek to put laws inplace: Laws that are usually poorly written and uninforceable. Proving negligence is a tough and expensive road to recovering the cost of a rescue.

Proper funding of the F&G seams to be a reasonalbe way to go. I understand that a large part of F&G budget comes from the declining sale of Hunting and Fishing licenses. A backcountry use permit would be a way to provide funding. This is done in the Canadian Rockies National Parks. However, it would involve cooperation and changes to the way the state and the feds administer the Whites.

As for rescue insurance, maybe this should be part of my AMC membership dues. I believe that it would be very inexpensive based on what the Alpine Club of Canada tell me. However, only a percentage of those using the backcountry are AMC members.

None of these options are perfect. Just some thoughts. Jasper
 
dug said:
Yep, the Globe is behind an undefined standard describing winter essentials...which are undefined....in locations...which are undefined.

A real hard-hitting editorial there.
It makes sense if you think only about the money. The devil is in the details, of which there are many. (A number of the problems are listed in http://www.network54.com/Forum/3897/message/1204051344/Rescue+Fines.) It will open a real can of worms, including people being reluctant to call for help because they are worried about the cost.

IMO, the problems it will cause are worse than any problems that it might solve.

If it is enacted, hikers' rescue insurance will most likely become available, either directly or as a part of some membership. (It is already part of the AAC membership.) The hiking "pros" will know all about it, but the casual hikers will not know and are more likely to have to pay.

Doug
 
I used to get paid to price insurance and then was paid to buy it and then was paid to sell it. So, let's try a little exercise here, without benefit of actuarial science 'cuz there ain't any yet on negligently recreating in NH.

S'pose three instances annually of negligent recreating in which Fish and Game wants to recover rescue costs, and the average cost of rescue per incident is $5000. (The annual frequency of paid claims will be low 'cuz Fish and Game probably won't be interested in the nickel and dime cases, especially after the AG's office is asked to chase the first small one.) S'pose the policy limit per insured per year is just $5000, 'cuz that's all the insurer is interested in writing at the moment. S'pose the administrative burden of underwriting the insurance, selling it, and managing the claims is 20% of the value of claims paid out. (That's probably very low, but we're jest s'posin' here without benefit of actuarial science.) There won't be any coverage for legal defense of the insured, 'cuz it probably wouldn't make economic sense to offer it. S'pose that an insurer wants what the trade calls an "underwriting profit" of 5% (again, probably low.) S'pose we ignore premium taxes to keep things relatively simple. Similarly, s'pose we ignore any need for reinsurance to be purchased by the insurer, because it ain't the Taj Mahal we're talking about insuring here. Finally, I will brook no discussion from the cognoscenti about the time value of money, 'cuz the "tail" on these claims is minuscule compared to other lines of insurance.

The total premiums to be charged to pay for those three claims = 3 x $5000 + .20 (3 x $5000) + .05 x ((3 x $5000) + .20 x (3 x $5000)) = $18,900. In other words, 189 of us are going to have to pay $100 apiece annually to get an insurer interested, or 378 buyers at $50 apiece, or 756 buyers at $25 apiece.

Now 'spose that the actual claim against an allegedly negligent recreationist could be $25,000 instead of $5000. Do you start to see what it would cost to offer this coverage for a policy limit adequate for the loss exposure? Do you see how the cost rapidly escalates if purchase of the insurance isn't made mandatory and many people opt not to buy it? Have you read the multiple threads bemoaning the "exorbitant" cost of the WMNF parking permit?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an insurer to step up to the plate on this one, folks.
 
Last summer I spent a week on the Continental Divide Trail in southern Colorado. We spent a day acclimating(avoiding going from elevation 12 to 13,000+ in one day) in Silverton, where we learned that the purchase of a fishing license gives you Search and Rescue insurance.

After reading this thread, I dug out the license, and its right there in black and white - I was charged $0.25 for search and rescue. I believe the Colorado Division of Wildlife tacks it on to every kind of license they offer and I guess they sell enough licenses so they only have to charge a quarter to cover the searches they get called on to do.

The outfitter told us the charge for SAR, if necessary, is substantial. So the license seems like a pretty reasonable approach to me. I paid $8 for the first day, and $5 a day for the rest - and I believe there is an even less expensive way to do it.

You can buy the license or not, its pretty cheap insurance. And no fish were harmed - or even threatened.
 
DougPaul said:
The American Alpine Club already has rescue insurance (up to $5000 per incident) as part of membership ($75/yr). http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pages/page/97

Global Rescue also sells services at $329/yr for backcountry rescue "anytime, anywhere". http://www.globalrescue.com/affinity/AAC/AAC.html.

Doug

The new AAC plan (as of 12/1/2007) is not insurance. The advertising materials explicitly disclaim it to be insurance. It is a "rescue service" from Global Rescue ("GR"), as defined in the Schedule of Benefits. Among other highlights:

1. There is nothing provided for searching for a lost person. That's right, nothing.

2. The benefit is to "provide, arrange and pay all necessary and ordinary expenses for rescue, air and/or surface transport to the nearest medical facility for Members who meet the Evacuation Criteria. The provision of emergency rescue services shall begin and end at the trailhead. . . . GR will provide services and charge you the excess over $5000 if applicable. A credit card may be required in advance."

Had enough yet? There's more:

3. "MUST CALL RESCUE HOTLINE (i.e., the GR phone number) TO INITIATE SERVICES." And, the "first call must be to GR[.]" That's right, not to 911, but to GR. Here's the explanation that does not appear in the "Schedule of Benefits" but rather in the FAQs:
"Global Rescue does ask that the first call is placed directly to GR, but understands that there may be times when an AAC member (or someone else on the member's behalf) simply calls the local "911" number first. In those cases, GR needs to be notified as soon as possible, especially while the rescue is still in process. This will allow Global Rescue to provide full capabilities of logistical support to the mission, forming contingency plans and utilizing a full team of evacuation experts. A family member or companion may also make the call to Global Rescue on the member's behalf. When notified in a timely manner before or during a rescue mission, part of Global Rescue's benefit to the AAC is that GR will absorb the first $5,000 worth of rescue-generated costs.
"It is in your best interest to get GR in the loop as early as possible and that means educating next of kin, partners and guides by providing them with instructions and the GR number prior to engaging in the activity. What may potentially become difficult is if GR is contacted after everything has already played out. Global Rescue is not an insurance provider, but rather a rescue service, more similar to AAA’s roadside assistance than to collision coverage.
"Should your rescue be completed without Global Rescue assistance, please contact the AAC to report your rescue and to be advised on your options.
"

Can you just imagine the happy state of affairs as Fish and Game is offered, midstream, GR's "full capabilities of logistical support to the mission, forming contingency plans and utilizing a full team of evacuation experts"? Fish and Game is not going to surrender its statutory responsibility for managing a SAR incident to a fee-for-service rescue outfit. (Has anybody ever heard of these folks even operating in the White Mountains, the 'Dacks, or BSP?)

You also have the opportunity to send them another $119 to have GR provide "all services anywhere MORE THAN 160 MILES from your home. This includes the full cost of all medical, security and search and rescue teams" up to $500,000. FYI -- Boston to Pinkham Notch is about 155 miles, per Mapquest.

Nope, this ain't it, if "it" is defined as coverage for the proposed liability for SAR expenses imposed on "negligent" recreationists in NH.
 
Last edited:
Top