Nurburgring & Insurance
Discussion
agtlaw said:
website updated with Ombudsman's August 2010 decision: http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurburgring_insura...
Which basically states what the majority on here have been saying ie your own damage cover is void and the TP aspect stands, but only under the obligations as laid out in the RTA.Whether the insurer can recover this is still in the legal process, so undecided.
Effectively, anyone going on the Nurburgring and hoping that their insurance covers them is taking a huge risk.
Hi there,
I was just wondering whether anyone could provide the names of some insurance companies specifically for the Nurburgring.
Despite having been on the public days a few times previously, I am thinking that this years trip (3 days at the track), might warrant dedicated insurance cover just to ensure that god forbid something bad happens, not only is my car covered but so too will the 3rd party liability that might result...
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Dave
I was just wondering whether anyone could provide the names of some insurance companies specifically for the Nurburgring.
Despite having been on the public days a few times previously, I am thinking that this years trip (3 days at the track), might warrant dedicated insurance cover just to ensure that god forbid something bad happens, not only is my car covered but so too will the 3rd party liability that might result...
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Dave
agtlaw said:
website updated with Ombudsman's August 2010 decision: http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurburgring_insura...
So effectively despite being called a bellend by everyone, wot I sed.Switched on specialist solicitors' firm said:
In August 2010 the Financial Ombudsman Service made a final decision regarding a case concerning the Nurburgring Nordschleife. The Ombudsman ruled that the Nordschleife is a one way toll circuit with all the characteristics of a 'prepared course'. The insured's policy excluded use on a 'prepared course'. This sort of exclusion was held to be neither unfair or unreasonable given the increased risks associated with driving in such places. The existence of road traffic laws and speed limits was said to be irrelevant as it is still a 'prepared course'. The insurer agreed to meet any third party liabilities but this did not mean that the driver was driving within the terms and conditions of his policy. The ombudsman said that UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of 3rd party only cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own-damage cover. There is no restriction on the right to exclude certain matters affecting the policyholder's own property and person. Such matters are governed by the contract of insurance entered into by both parties. Hence, the insurer can indemnify the third party (to comply with the law) without having to indemnify the driver for his own losses if they arise from an excluded event or situation.
Your insurance policy will probably contain a clause to the effect that if the insurer is obligated to meet a claim it otherwise would not pay then the insurer is entitled to reclaim the settlement from the policyholder. In May 2010 the insurer's right to recovery was considered by the Court of Appeal. The case has been referred to the European Court of justice.
So, assume you are not insured, as it appears that your own damage is not covered, and it seems likely that if your insurer pays out for third party damage, you may well end up being sued by them to cover the cost, so bye bye house.Your insurance policy will probably contain a clause to the effect that if the insurer is obligated to meet a claim it otherwise would not pay then the insurer is entitled to reclaim the settlement from the policyholder. In May 2010 the insurer's right to recovery was considered by the Court of Appeal. The case has been referred to the European Court of justice.
Edited by Soovy on Wednesday 18th August 21:45
10.3.09 when i pointed out the RTA provisions you said:
"Good luck with that. When you wreck your car, and you trash the armco, and you close the Ring, your insurers WILL tell you to poke it. So then you are the one with the busted car, the massive bill and no pay out. As I said, good luck. If I am at the Ring, I assume I am not insured, and drive accordingly. If I smack it, it's my problem."
11.3.09 when i said only [c words] knowingly drive without insurance you said: "No, I am blessed with sufficient resources to settle a claim if I have to. Without having sell my house."
I questioned that pointing out that you have a crap car for a man of your purported means. i said "i smell a rat". you didn't reply.
29.5.09 when asked about an insurance company providing cover for TF you said: "Sadly not gonna happen"
23.6.10 you said: "You won't be insured. You won't. Unless they give it to you IN WRITING that YOU ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE WHEN TAKING PART IN TOURISTFAHRTEN DAYS AT THE NURGBURGRING. Which clearly they won't."
On the same day i posted a scanned letter confirming the comprehensive cover which I have.
2.6.10 you said: "Nurburgring Tourist fahrten = Track day".
so, excuse me if i think you're a bellend.
agtlaw said:
10.3.09 when i pointed out the RTA provisions you said:
"Good luck with that. When you wreck your car, and you trash the armco, and you close the Ring, your insurers WILL tell you to poke it. So then you are the one with the busted car, the massive bill and no pay out. As I said, good luck. If I am at the Ring, I assume I am not insured, and drive accordingly. If I smack it, it's my problem."
11.3.09 when i said only [c words] knowingly drive without insurance you said: "No, I am blessed with sufficient resources to settle a claim if I have to. Without having sell my house."
I questioned that pointing out that you have a crap car for a man of your purported means. i said "i smell a rat". you didn't reply.
29.5.09 when asked about an insurance company providing cover for TF you said: "Sadly not gonna happen"
23.6.10 you said: "You won't be insured. You won't. Unless they give it to you IN WRITING that YOU ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE WHEN TAKING PART IN TOURISTFAHRTEN DAYS AT THE NURGBURGRING. Which clearly they won't."
On the same day i posted a scanned letter confirming the comprehensive cover which I have.
2.6.10 you said: "Nurburgring Tourist fahrten = Track day".
so, excuse me if i think you're a bellend.
Charmed I'm sure. Great advert for your firm (which you advertise in your profile) to be going on a public forum and calling people bellends. I'm sure the Law Society Professional Conduct people would be most impressed."Good luck with that. When you wreck your car, and you trash the armco, and you close the Ring, your insurers WILL tell you to poke it. So then you are the one with the busted car, the massive bill and no pay out. As I said, good luck. If I am at the Ring, I assume I am not insured, and drive accordingly. If I smack it, it's my problem."
11.3.09 when i said only [c words] knowingly drive without insurance you said: "No, I am blessed with sufficient resources to settle a claim if I have to. Without having sell my house."
I questioned that pointing out that you have a crap car for a man of your purported means. i said "i smell a rat". you didn't reply.
29.5.09 when asked about an insurance company providing cover for TF you said: "Sadly not gonna happen"
23.6.10 you said: "You won't be insured. You won't. Unless they give it to you IN WRITING that YOU ARE COVERED BY INSURANCE WHEN TAKING PART IN TOURISTFAHRTEN DAYS AT THE NURGBURGRING. Which clearly they won't."
On the same day i posted a scanned letter confirming the comprehensive cover which I have.
2.6.10 you said: "Nurburgring Tourist fahrten = Track day".
so, excuse me if i think you're a bellend.
You have a written indemnity for the Ring from your insurer. Bully for you. So you're covered. As I said in my last posting, if you get it in writing then fine, otherwise assume you're not covered.
Now, tell the rest of us WHO IT IS THAT HAS GIVEN YOU THE LETTER so that we can get one as well and we're all happy. You might even earn a commission for all the business they'll get.
I'm calling this one. Custard, or it didn't happen.
Edited by Soovy on Thursday 19th August 09:14
not sure i understand "custard or it didn't happen". i can assure you that i'm able to get a letter from my broker confirming said cover. suggesting that a lawyer specialist in road traffic law isn't able to take out an insurance policy has affirmed my earlier stated view of "soovy."
agtlaw said:
not sure i understand "custard or it didn't happen". i can assure you that i'm able to get a letter from my broker confirming said cover. suggesting that a lawyer specialist in road traffic law isn't able to take out an insurance policy has affirmed my earlier stated view of "soovy."
Good for you.Now, are you going to actual be helpful and tell us who gave you the cover or not, given that you conveniently removed this from the scanned letter when it's the one useful piece of information everyone wants to know.
I don't doubt you do have the cover, well done. Have a grape. Now tell us where we can get it FFS.
Edited by Soovy on Thursday 19th August 14:11
Soovy said:
ringweekends said:
I can be a bell end at times - but I'm a named driver on agtlaw's policy
Will someone who's on this blasted policy please do the rest of us a favour and tell us who the underwriter is please?All I got was a link to this thread
V8mate said:
Soovy said:
ringweekends said:
I can be a bell end at times - but I'm a named driver on agtlaw's policy
Will someone who's on this blasted policy please do the rest of us a favour and tell us who the underwriter is please?All I got was a link to this thread
Soovy said:
agtlaw said:
if insurers Bell and Endsleigh merged they could call the new company Soovy. it would probably save embarrassment.
You could save your blushes by telling who you're insured with, rather than trying and failing to score points.Given you've got an R32, surely you'd be better hiring something rapid if you want to drive quickly on TF days? No insurance problems then.
fergus said:
Soovy said:
agtlaw said:
if insurers Bell and Endsleigh merged they could call the new company Soovy. it would probably save embarrassment.
You could save your blushes by telling who you're insured with, rather than trying and failing to score points.Given you've got an R32, surely you'd be better hiring something rapid if you want to drive quickly on TF days? No insurance problems then.
Great, my thread has ended up in an argument about ends of bells! 
To be fair to Soovy, I have no idea why the guys who have insurance are not saying where they get it from because if I had an insurance company I'd be very, very happy with all the extra business coming in from threads like this. But to be fair to everyone else we have all said, one way or another, that driving on the 'ring without a specifically worded insurance policy is at best risky so no one can call dibs on saying that.
And TF is not classified as a track day by anyone, least of all Nurburgring GmbH who owns the place so whoever said that is deffo wrong!
The track itself is unique not just for its physical existence but for its legal position in German & European law. As the Hermans require your car to be road legal and insured whilst driving on it then the EU law that covers the UK insurance pay out for 3rd party, which is something like "...cannot be excluded from paying out to 3rd party claims on any road in Europe where insurance is mandatory in the host country.." (Or some s
t like that - AGT can you verify?), applies.
However, the insurance company have the option to recover, (unfairly IMO - it's not like they don't make money is it), from you for any payout that contravenes their agreement with you which includes, "…use of the car in a way that is otherwise not in keeping with the terms and conditions..."
And they have:
a) A lot of mechanisms to enforce this
2) Lots of lawyers
D) A lot more money than you
Have you seen the Plain English Campaign "Crystal Mark" on an insurance policy lately? No, me neither.
That said, if anyone would care to PM me and let me know who will insure me, I'd be grateful.
Even if they are a bellend!
To be fair to Soovy, I have no idea why the guys who have insurance are not saying where they get it from because if I had an insurance company I'd be very, very happy with all the extra business coming in from threads like this. But to be fair to everyone else we have all said, one way or another, that driving on the 'ring without a specifically worded insurance policy is at best risky so no one can call dibs on saying that.
And TF is not classified as a track day by anyone, least of all Nurburgring GmbH who owns the place so whoever said that is deffo wrong!
The track itself is unique not just for its physical existence but for its legal position in German & European law. As the Hermans require your car to be road legal and insured whilst driving on it then the EU law that covers the UK insurance pay out for 3rd party, which is something like "...cannot be excluded from paying out to 3rd party claims on any road in Europe where insurance is mandatory in the host country.." (Or some s
t like that - AGT can you verify?), applies.However, the insurance company have the option to recover, (unfairly IMO - it's not like they don't make money is it), from you for any payout that contravenes their agreement with you which includes, "…use of the car in a way that is otherwise not in keeping with the terms and conditions..."
And they have:
a) A lot of mechanisms to enforce this
2) Lots of lawyers
D) A lot more money than you
Have you seen the Plain English Campaign "Crystal Mark" on an insurance policy lately? No, me neither.
That said, if anyone would care to PM me and let me know who will insure me, I'd be grateful.
Even if they are a bellend!
Indeed. Won't tell anyone about his cover. Won't explain his view of the legal status (and it IS just a view - the FOS are not law). Posts his company website on lots of other motoring forums. Not actually that helpful really.
It is probably immaterial HOW we get to the position that the insurer is obliged to pay. agtlaw thinks it is statute, we think it is probably via agreement i.e. the insurer stepping in to act as the MIB. The end result is the same to the insured. You may be recovered against.
It is probably immaterial HOW we get to the position that the insurer is obliged to pay. agtlaw thinks it is statute, we think it is probably via agreement i.e. the insurer stepping in to act as the MIB. The end result is the same to the insured. You may be recovered against.
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff