Image from Shutterstock.
Heli-skiing, for those not in the know, is a sport where skiers are flown via helicopter to remote mountain areas, are set down at the peak of a backcountry mountain, then ski down the slope. Stephen Butts was an avid heli-skier and had participated in more than a dozen such trips. In January 2005, he and a group of friends were skiing down a remote slope in British Columbia when an avalanche was triggered. Butts was swept into a stand of trees, broke his neck and died.
The court case this event triggered, West Coast Life Insurance v. Hoar, hinged on whether or not Butts’ heirs were entitled to his life insurance money. When WCLI sold Butts the policy and was establishing the premium for the $3 million policy, he was asked whether he participated in “any hazardous activities,” and answered in the negative.
Although Butts’ estate argued that Butts would not have considered heli-skiing hazardous and was not being deliberately misleading, they could not counter WCLI’s statistical evidence that heli-skiers are 18,702 times more likely to die in avalanches than recreational skiers at resorts. The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that WCLI was entitled to summary judgment rescinding the life insurance payout, and Butts’ heirs lost the $3 million.