Nurburgring & Insurance

[Fireblade69]

Gummy Sagoo said:

stumpy67 said:

Hi all

Interesting read. Interesting as I'm considering going on the CircuitDays 700 in a few weeks time, but only if I can get cover for the closed day.

Hopefully an answer to the riddle in the next week or two!

Trackday rules: trackday cover.

Check with Chris at Circuit Days on this as the NUrburgring may require circuit damage insurance which Circuit Days may cover as part of the package.

[Fireblade69]

R1 Loon said:

This is a specific wording attached to all companies associated with the Admiral Group of insurers (elephant, Bell, Diamond, Admiral etc)

"General Exceptions ot your cover ........ used on the Nurburgring Nordschleife, or for racing, pacemaking, competitions, rallies, trackdays, trials or speed tests either on a road, track, or at an off-road 4x4 event"

Link here, it's in column 1 on page 17, 4th bullet down.

http://www.elephant.co.uk/policyDocs/EL51%200210%2...

Not all insurers are this specific, but the reality is that all will view the Nurburgring as a trackday event, irrespective of technicality over your definition of it.

Either way win / lose or draw for you, the spirit is there in the policy that the cover isn't offered and it'd be a long expensive drawn out legal battle, with limited chance of you recovering your legal costs in the proceedings.

Hiding behind smallprint and / or pedantry is not how the Law necessarily works in the UK for either side and it is unreasonable for a supplier of any product or service to be expected to define every potential scenario where an exclusion may apply.

Spot on there. The whole crux of this thread is for me to be absolutely transparent on this with the insurers. Unfortunately, the insurance company insist on hiding behind grey areas and murky policy clauses on the basis that they can't actually say why they won't cover me. Tossers.

Oh and regarding the, "Hiding behind smallprint and / or pedantry is not how the Law necessarily works in the UK for either side and it is unreasonable for a supplier of any product or service to be expected to define every potential scenario where an exclusion may apply.."

Why not? If they are insistent on grey areas or being non-specific then why can't I? It's not like they don't have the capability to correctly define their requirements is it. I do project and procuct useage definitions everyday as part of my job, it's quite easy really and the sample you showed in your post actually specified that quite explicitly so if they can do it, why can't all insurers.

Edited by Fireblade69 on Friday 23 July 12:00

[Fireblade69]

It looks like there is no cover as my insurers have stated earlier, (as mentioned), that it was not their intent. I've got the broker on the case for alternative options such as temporary increase in excess and removal of personal liability on my vehicle. I don't mind spanking mine and loosing but don't want anyone else to lose out because of me. I'm just limiting my liability but as someone pointed out, if i'm risking 10 bags of my own cash, I'm less likely to spank it on purpose.

Noger, nice post mate, appreciate the effort and to everyone else, thanks as well. Much appreciated.

Still more to come.........

[Fireblade69]

It looks like no dice from the insurer on this. They have stipulated that they would consider the Nordschleife a track and it looks like Nurburgring GmBH agree with them!

"Hello again,

the Nordschleife is a race track but you have to follow the road traffic regulations.

If you should require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Sabrina Berresheim
Ihr welcome°center"

However, the German road cozzers are looking into it for me as well and have responded with a holding email, (Thank you for your email, team can you look into this on behalf of Mr fireblade blah blah blah). Gotta say, didn't really expect an email from the Federal Ministry of Transport so I'm very happy they're looking into it.

At the moment it looks like the ring taxi, a Miss Daisy lap and some pax loving only :-(

You know what, I might not go.

[Fireblade69]

"You could contact rsr and rent. One of their alfa's shared between two people seems a good deal to me."

Yeah, but Dale's left now. No more mate's rates.

[Fireblade69]

fergus said:

Following a detailed letter to the technical underwriters, I now have confirmation of 1st party cover. I have been promised written confirmation of this.

However, upon relaying this info back to my broker he said that although my policy (11 months to run) is still valid, the insurer (owned by RBS) pulled out of the non commercial market on 1st Aug, as there model didn't fit with the other non specialist offerings within the RBS stable, etc.... They won't issue any more private motor policies.

I've now got details of the guys underwriting the proposed new scheme to will approach them in due course. Until I get a yay or nay from the new guys, I'm not going to jepordise my chances by declaring names, etc.

Nice!

As soon as you get it, please feel free to blab like a mofo

[Fireblade69]

Bad news. I contacted both the Nurburgring owners and the German ministry responsible for roads and they have both responded.

---

Nurburgring GmBH:

"The Nordschleife is a race track but you have to follow the road traffic regulations."

---

MINISTERIUM FÜR WIRTSCHAFT, VERKEHR, LANDWIRTSCHAFT UND WEINBAU RHEINLAND-PFALZ (Ministry of Economy, Transport, Agriculture & Wine)

The letter was in German but I had it translated by a German colleague and it basically says the same thing. Although the police consider it a race track they enforce the law on it as a special circumstance. You must follow normal road laws which include the same rules as on the Autobahn, i.e. you should only go as fast as it is safe to do so and you can stop in the distance you can see. Anyone involved in an accident that can be shown to have breached this will be considered to be at fault as a matter of course.

---

So, this whole exercise has shown that if you're not specifically covered in writing, you're taking one big risk and the insurers *may* come after you for the money if they are forced to pay out. There are policies out there which allow you to drive under TF rules, some of which impose higher excesses. I've not found one yet as anyone on this forum that has one, is keeping well quiet about it in case the insurers notice!

Looks like the track car is going on the trailer and being dropped of at Spa Francorchamps whilst I go and watch/taxi/pax love/BTG Motorsport Rent-a-Car it up.

Cock! (I'm still doing a lap in the Audi but I'll be driving Miss Daisy!)

[Fireblade69]

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 st 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!

[Fireblade69]

PM me?

[Fireblade69]

Thought I'd give you a belated update. Insurance company would not budge on giving me a definitive statement on the insurance matter at the Nurburgring so I didn't bother going. Can't see the point in risking anything like the level of possible liability and I don't have the finances to burn by hiring a prepped car from BTG or RSR & taking into account their excesses. Cock. Looks like it's Brands/Silverstone and the 325i track car I own 1/4 off will be taken out more.

I've changed insurers as they wanted a crap load more for renewal which apparently nowt to do with the questions, (yeah right!), and the new insurance has it in big letters on the policy "Not covered for use on the Nurburgring Nordschliefe" Pretty clear cut I'd say - other insurers please note! (I wonder if the Sudschliefe can be re-opened?)

Bloody insurers. You all smell.

[Fireblade69]

R1 Loon said:

Fireblade69 said:

Thought I'd give you a belated update. Insurance company would not budge on giving me a definitive statement on the insurance matter at the Nurburgring so I didn't bother going. Can't see the point in risking anything like the level of possible liability and I don't have the finances to burn by hiring a prepped car from BTG or RSR & taking into account their excesses. Cock. Looks like it's Brands/Silverstone and the 325i track car I own 1/4 off will be taken out more.

I've changed insurers as they wanted a crap load more for renewal which apparently nowt to do with the questions, (yeah right!), and the new insurance has it in big letters on the policy "Not covered for use on the Nurburgring Nordschliefe" Pretty clear cut I'd say - other insurers please note! (I wonder if the Sudschliefe can be re-opened?)

Bloody insurers. You all smell.

I don't understad the last comment, as insurers do try to keep premiums down by excluding cover that only the minority (and a small minority at that) want. There would've been specialist insurers who could offer standalone cover, but claims levels & costs must have reached a point where the cover becomes uneconomical to offer, so it's excluded.

The fact that some insurers have resorted to explicitly excluding it, suggests that this may be the case.

Look at it this way, would we all want to pay for cover that includes £5000 for stereo equipment, commercial insurance, unlimited mileage, no opportunity to flex excesses, £1000 for baby seats and there'll be a lot more that I can't think of.

Right, before I go off on one about fking insurers this is what happened to me this year:

Some complete in a Corsa turning right on a roundabout from the left hand lane, (left or straight ahead only), clipped the bumper of my car then failed to stop. I went down the cop shop to report it as is my legal requirement and he was there so we exchanged details. Damage to my car - light scratch that I wasn't worried about. Next thing I know, insurance letter from his insurer saying that I had tried to run him of the road and he was claiming for a dented door and scratches all down the side. My insurers steps in, argues the evidence and the 3rd party claim is dismissed. I let my insurer know that I didn't want to claim it because as far as I was concerned it wasn't anything to do with me and I the damage was very light.

Renewal time. Went through all the claims & convictions, (no convictions since 1996 and all claims are not at fault - hit by rock falling from lorry, driven into on the M4, car hit whilst parked), but left that one off because I thought it wasn't relevant. When they checked up, they said that there was a claim I hadn't mentioned. I said it was no claim and the insurers had dismissed it and the guy said that it was still an accident. I argued that people driving into me and then trying to make a fraudulant claim shouldn't really count seeing as I had not claimed as I could have. Apparently it still counts. So what is the end result of someone breaking the highway code, driving into you and then trying to make a fraudulant claim against you? That'll be an extra £103.00 on your premium please sir!!!

Someone else made a claim against me for reversing into their car in Southend which I spent a while arguing. Half a dozen phone calls, 2 witness statements and loads of emails later they finally agreed that I had not reversed into someone in Southend. My evidence was pretty good though:

1) I have never, ever been to Southend. Ever.
2) I was on the M1 in Derby at the time in question.
3) I had about a dozen witnesses.
4) The reg number they had, (and the reason I couldn't have reversed into them), was from my fking Honda Fireblade!

I was on the way back from the Rock & Blues Custom Show

I don't like insurers and I have good reasons.

End rant...

[Fireblade69]

R1 Loon said:

Fireblade69 said:

A rant...

Good rant.

Interesting that you blame your insurers for the second "claim", even though they will have had nothing to do with it.

first one, I'd suggest having a look through the bks that gets spouted on ths forum to help people who are clearly at fault in an accident drag it out and try to get some blame on an innocent driver.

Final piece is that there is absolutely no way you know that the extra £103 was for this incident. People seem to think that insurance is only a deflationary product, whereas everything else can rise in cost.

You are already at maximum NCD, all premiums are rising, so that may explain it. But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Tell me what industry you work in and I'll have a good rant about that, even if everything I rant about is flawed.

I didn't blame my insurers for the 2nd claim, the only thing they did wrong was take 18 months to get my excess back. I didn't try and apportion blame and it was merely a 'for reference' so I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Secondly, I do know that that amount is how much was added on because I went through the whole quote process and I was quoted a premium at X value, when they checked the claim record they found that I had not mentioned that roundabout incident but all the others were 100% spot on. The re-quote came back as X + £103.00 so using my advanced powers of deduction, I worked it out.

Because of these penises that keep driving into me or dropping rocks of the back of a lorry, my 'protected' NCD has been slashed by 50% for this year. FFS.

Check your facts or read the posts properly before you get up on the soap box.

I work in the call centre industry, I doubt you'll be short of ammo on that.

[Fireblade69]

Noger said:

agtlaw said:

Noger said:

And UCTA doesn't apply to insurance contracts anyway.

however, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do apply.

In this case wouldn't this be excluded from that on the basis that they are defining the main subject matter of the contract ?

Anyway, IANAL so I won't argue with one

On the "Ring as racetrack" FOS ruling, do you know if they intend to publish this. We haven't seen anything so far ?

Well, Nürburgring Automotive GmbH say it's a racetrack and they own it so they should know.

[Fireblade69]

From the operators:

"Hello again,

the Nordschleife is a race track but you have to follow the road traffic regulations.

If you should require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Sabrina Berresheim
Ihr welcome°center

Nürburgring Automotive GmbH
Otto-Flimm-Straße
D - 53520 Nürburg

Telefon [phone]
Telefax [phone]

[e-mail]
www.nuerburgring.de"

So I think that me saying it is a racetrack according to the owners, (parent company/operators/leaseholders - whatever they are), is more than just casually glancing at the signs. Do you want a copy of the letter from the German transport department as well? I've got that too but it's in German.

[Fireblade69]

It's all so typically vague. Owners, operators, insurance, police, lawyers they all spend ages arguing a point for some unknown reason. It's either a track or it isn't, why muddy the water?

Edited by Fireblade69 on Sunday 14th November 08:44

[Fireblade69]