I’m assuming that climbing Everest is something that isn’t covered under an existing life insurance policy. I found medical insurance for Everest that seems to cover medical assistance or emergency rescue on the mountain, but I couldn’t find any life insurance policies. My fiance believes that insurance companies would simply take the risk factor into account when determining the premiums and coverage amount, but we couldn’t find any information online.
So is it possible to get a life insurance policy if you want to climb Everest?
When I sold Hartford, we sold a helicopter pilot and a Busch series race driver. They were told they could either be rated up, or have their dangerous activities excluded from being covered.
If they had started these activities after they bought the policy, they would have been covered.
Is it covered? Yes, as long as you have a policy that doesn’t exclude it. :dubious:
The only time that a life insurance policy will exclude it is if you indicated at the time of the application that you are a mountain climber. (Also, see my comments below.)
Can you get it? Probably not, but it’s possible. There could be a flat extra (probably around $10/thousand or more for climbing Mount Everest. Typically, this would be $3-5/thousand for “regular” mountain climbing), or an exclusion for mountain climbing, but insurance companies don’t like putting exclusions for particular causes of death because of the uncertainty in determining the “true” cause of death, eg. you have a heart attack and then fall down the mountain. Are you covered? Was the heart attack triggered by the mountain climbing? Or, you fall down the mountain, suffer critical injuries, but you survive, and then die of complications from surgery two months later.
Climbing Mount Everest is not the same as “mountain climbing”, obviously. (Check out How to climb Everest.) It requires more expertise, dedication, and planning, and entails much more risk.
Also, Cardinal’s point is not quite correct: You are covered if you start a dangerous activity after you’ve bought your policy, as long as it was clear that you didn’t intend to start soon after buying the policy. What is “intend” and what is “soon”? It’s open to interpretation, and is subject to the exact wording on the application.
For example, let’s say the application asks: “Have you engaged in any dangerous sport or avocation (including mountain climbing) in the past 12 months, or do you intend to do so within the next 12 months?”
And, let’s say that you’ve been training for the past six months, but you haven’t actually climbed a mountain. And, you’ve already booked your flight and made other arrangements for a climb. Well, that’s a clear indication of intent within the next 12 months.
Yes, you are right. And I would think that if enough insureds started dying on Everest, they would start sending out a supplemental questionnaire for mountain climbing.
For underwriting purposes, it may very well be. What I mean is this: Suppose you are a carrier with 1,000,000 insureds. What are the odds that one of your insureds will die on Everest? Pretty small, and the extra mortality can be charged back to the other mountain climbers, bunjee jumpers, and skydivers in the pool.
That’s the death rate per successful climbs. The death rate for all climbs is a good deal lower, around 3.3%. Still pretty high, but as a known risk I think the insurance companies can actuarialize it.
Contact a life insurance broker and find out which life insurers would be prepared to quote on this risk. It’s a number of years since I’ve worked in the life insurance industry in Australia, but I did have a stint doing the calculations for the extra risks on proposals with hazardous activities.
Actually, it’s not. In fact, I consulted some of the formal underwriting guidelines and I couldn’t find any insurance company that would offer insurance to someone who climbs in the Himalayas. But, I’m not ruling out the possibility that such a company exists.
That’s the wrong the question. The right question is: What are the odds that one your insureds *who climbs Everest * will die on Everest?
The insurance already knows that this particular applicant is climbing Everest, with all the additional risk that such an activity involves. Again, we’re talking about the time of application. If, instead, we’re talking about a policy that’s been in force for several years, then all causes of death of covered, including death from climbing Mt. Everest.
Using that logic, then why isn’t the extra mortality from mountain climbers charged to those who aren’t mountain climbers?
How would they know? If you check off “yes” for mountaineering, do they ask you for more specifics? Or do they just rate your policy?
Can you quote the relevant part of the underwriting guidelines?
Because there are a lot more people who engage in extreme sports than people who climb Mount Everest. If a carrier pays out one Everest claim every 50 years, it’s not going to have a significant effect on their bottom line or premiums. At the same time, if the carrier asks about extreme sports, it has to list them.
A buddy of mine is a mountaineer. He has climbed a few of the Himalayan peaks in Nepal (not Everest though, it’s become grand central station relative to other peaks). He had no problem getting life insurance after he got married. His yearly premiums are higher though because he had to list mountain climbing/mountaineering as a high-risk activity in which he partakes. His premiums are not unreasonable though, but then his life insurance policy is pretty modest.
Duhkecco, “mountain climbing” is exactly what climbing Everest is. You may be thinking of “rock climbing” which is a related but different sport. The site you linked to contained advice that is applicable to all serious Apline expeditions. Everest is just a lot scarier than most because the altitude-related risks are intensified and rescue can be much more complicated (sometimes hopeless).
Due to rock climbing and caving, my premiums are also a little bit higher, but only to the tune of $50 extra a year. My policy advisor said the one that will really cost you is sky-diving.
You can also get a policy that is specific to mountaineers, cavers and cayoneers. In the UK, there is Summit Financial that offers life insurance policies that includes mortgage protection, and policies that include income protection of you manage to hurt yourself so you can’t work for awhile. But Summit also takes great care to study the different types of climbing and mountaineering and are much more adept at assessing actual risk. They also take into account client experience certification etc.
I see that you are in Australia. In the U.S., that is what group health insurance is good for. If I applied for a private policy, which I have, the insurance companies will laugh their asses off. However, employers often dictate that their insurance providers give the same insurance to all employees. It tends to average out to the benefit of everyone especially people in high risk groups. I am not sure if it works the same way in Australia but it is very handy if you are in a high risk group. Mine is portable so I can have it for life even though the odds of early death are stacked against me.
Health insurance is normally puchased on an individual basis in Australia, not through one’s employer. In any case, health insurers cannot offer life insurance. A possible alternative that Kayeby could consider is purchasing additional life insurance via a superannuation fund, if he/she is a member of one. Again, there may be exclusions/loadings for the mountain climbing, but it’s worth asking.
I’m aware of the difference.
I see that my statement was ambiguous. Of course climbing Everest is mountain climbing, but more dangerous, and therefore poses more risk to the life insurance company. You yourself say:
More risk, more complicated rescue.
The life insurance company is not going to take on the risk. Some “special risk” companies – Lloyd’s of London being the most famous – might take on the risk, but with a huge premium.
By the way, it occurs to me that with insurance in general, some people will get bargains. This is a result of the fact that there are practical limitations on the cost effectiveness and practicality of assessing risk.
For example, suppose you are writing a comprehensive auto policy for somebody who lives in New Jersey. Should you charge them extra if they drive into New York City for work? If they drive into the Bronx? Into Manhattan north of 125th street? What if it’s Washington heights? What if they park their car on the street but in front of a doorman building?
It’s important for insurance companies to gather information, assess risk, and split people into different pools, but at some point, the insurance carrier has to lump people together who don’t pose the same risk of loss. As a result, some people will end up overpaying and some people will end up getting a bargain.
You’ve got that backwards: On a group life policy with no underwriting, life insurance companies dictate that all of the employess must have the same amount, or the same multiple of income, even they don’t want it. This is how they spread the risk. Otherwise, those employees will the greatest risks (health, or otherwise) would be much more likely to ask for coverage (and greater amounts of it), and expose the insurance company to greater than anticipated risk.
If, however, you want to apply for additional coverage through the group plan, then you will have to provide additional evidence, just as you would if you were applying for an individual policy.
Not nothing, but I’m mainly relying on common sense. I’m potientially willing to defer to your expertise, but this being an anonymous message board, I would ask that you back up your claim, specifically:
You said the following:
Please quote and cite the formal underwriting guidelines you are relying on for this claim.