Nurburgring & Insurance
Discussion
fergus said:
Soovy said:
Fireblade69 said:
I guess I'm trying to avoid asking a direct question on the basis that the answer will most likely, be "No, you can't drive on it at all".
Of course it will.You know. I know it. They know it.
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.
Possibly not with absolute accuracy, mind ... I have asked two different insurance companies if I'm covered for TF and they have both said yes. In writing.
tertius said:
fergus said:
Soovy said:
Fireblade69 said:
I guess I'm trying to avoid asking a direct question on the basis that the answer will most likely, be "No, you can't drive on it at all".
Of course it will.You know. I know it. They know it.
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.
Possibly not with absolute accuracy, mind ... I have asked two different insurance companies if I'm covered for TF and they have both said yes. In writing.
Soovy said:
tertius said:
fergus said:
Soovy said:
Fireblade69 said:
I guess I'm trying to avoid asking a direct question on the basis that the answer will most likely, be "No, you can't drive on it at all".
Of course it will.You know. I know it. They know it.
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.
Possibly not with absolute accuracy, mind ... I have asked two different insurance companies if I'm covered for TF and they have both said yes. In writing.
The other is my current policy, which is a group fleet policy, limited to employees of the firm I happen to work for.
Soovy said:
Fireblade69 said:
I guess I'm trying to avoid asking a direct question on the basis that the answer will most likely, be "No, you can't drive on it at all".
Of course it will.You know. I know it. They know it.
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.
Wow! Actual evidence from someone that understands what I'm on about.
I'm not 11 years old and I do understand, (more than some of you it seems), what I am talking about. This is all about trying to do get a definitive answers to my questions in the original post.
We established quite early on, thanks to some early posters, that the chances of being covered without having it specified in writing are slim to none with a majority of the risk on the insured. We also established that honesty is the best policy but the one least likely to get you what you want. But, this is all about risk management and liability in the event of an off. So currently, I am waiting for my broker to find out why the insurer is "not happy" about me driving on the 'ring so I can then:
a) do something to make him happy
or
b) not care about him being happy as long as he pays out. He can be as unhappy as he wants
This is what I'm waiting for at the moment. It's a week long trip with friends, they're going on the 'ring, I want to, then we're off to a track day at Spa where I can go mad.
I am trying to get my insurers to put in writing what they will insure me for regarding the Nordschleife, (not the track Nurburgring), on a TF day, (as I don't have £900 wingwangs for a track day), and if they exclude the 'ring, what clause is it in my policy that excludes it so I can argue it. I'm going around in a 'ring taxi and I know a few people that will show me some PAX loving.
No track day at the 'ring. Eliminate that from your thoughts.
I'm not trying to pull the wool over their eyes but it is like pulling teeth, I can tell you. And I would LOVE to see a group policy that specifically allows any driver to drive any car in the fleet on the Nordschleife that isn't related to a company that specialises in driving there.
I'm still waiting for Slack, Harry & Company to get back to me. Unsurprisingly.
I'm not 11 years old and I do understand, (more than some of you it seems), what I am talking about. This is all about trying to do get a definitive answers to my questions in the original post.
We established quite early on, thanks to some early posters, that the chances of being covered without having it specified in writing are slim to none with a majority of the risk on the insured. We also established that honesty is the best policy but the one least likely to get you what you want. But, this is all about risk management and liability in the event of an off. So currently, I am waiting for my broker to find out why the insurer is "not happy" about me driving on the 'ring so I can then:
a) do something to make him happy
or
b) not care about him being happy as long as he pays out. He can be as unhappy as he wants
This is what I'm waiting for at the moment. It's a week long trip with friends, they're going on the 'ring, I want to, then we're off to a track day at Spa where I can go mad.
I am trying to get my insurers to put in writing what they will insure me for regarding the Nordschleife, (not the track Nurburgring), on a TF day, (as I don't have £900 wingwangs for a track day), and if they exclude the 'ring, what clause is it in my policy that excludes it so I can argue it. I'm going around in a 'ring taxi and I know a few people that will show me some PAX loving.
No track day at the 'ring. Eliminate that from your thoughts.
I'm not trying to pull the wool over their eyes but it is like pulling teeth, I can tell you. And I would LOVE to see a group policy that specifically allows any driver to drive any car in the fleet on the Nordschleife that isn't related to a company that specialises in driving there.
I'm still waiting for Slack, Harry & Company to get back to me. Unsurprisingly.
Fireblade69 said:
Wow! Actual evidence from someone that understands what I'm on about.
I'm not 11 years old and I do understand, (more than some of you it seems), what I am talking about. This is all about trying to do get a definitive answers to my questions in the original post.
We established quite early on, thanks to some early posters, that the chances of being covered without having it specified in writing are slim to none with a majority of the risk on the insured. We also established that honesty is the best policy but the one least likely to get you what you want. But, this is all about risk management and liability in the event of an off. So currently, I am waiting for my broker to find out why the insurer is "not happy" about me driving on the 'ring so I can then:
a) do something to make him happy
or
b) not care about him being happy as long as he pays out. He can be as unhappy as he wants
This is what I'm waiting for at the moment. It's a week long trip with friends, they're going on the 'ring, I want to, then we're off to a track day at Spa where I can go mad.
I am trying to get my insurers to put in writing what they will insure me for regarding the Nordschleife, (not the track Nurburgring), on a TF day, (as I don't have £900 wingwangs for a track day), and if they exclude the 'ring, what clause is it in my policy that excludes it so I can argue it. I'm going around in a 'ring taxi and I know a few people that will show me some PAX loving.
No track day at the 'ring. Eliminate that from your thoughts.
I'm not trying to pull the wool over their eyes but it is like pulling teeth, I can tell you. And I would LOVE to see a group policy that specifically allows any driver to drive any car in the fleet on the Nordschleife that isn't related to a company that specialises in driving there.
I'm still waiting for Slack, Harry & Company to get back to me. Unsurprisingly.
Exactly. I can't believe (well I can, it's PH) how far off track this topic has got.I'm not 11 years old and I do understand, (more than some of you it seems), what I am talking about. This is all about trying to do get a definitive answers to my questions in the original post.
We established quite early on, thanks to some early posters, that the chances of being covered without having it specified in writing are slim to none with a majority of the risk on the insured. We also established that honesty is the best policy but the one least likely to get you what you want. But, this is all about risk management and liability in the event of an off. So currently, I am waiting for my broker to find out why the insurer is "not happy" about me driving on the 'ring so I can then:
a) do something to make him happy
or
b) not care about him being happy as long as he pays out. He can be as unhappy as he wants
This is what I'm waiting for at the moment. It's a week long trip with friends, they're going on the 'ring, I want to, then we're off to a track day at Spa where I can go mad.
I am trying to get my insurers to put in writing what they will insure me for regarding the Nordschleife, (not the track Nurburgring), on a TF day, (as I don't have £900 wingwangs for a track day), and if they exclude the 'ring, what clause is it in my policy that excludes it so I can argue it. I'm going around in a 'ring taxi and I know a few people that will show me some PAX loving.
No track day at the 'ring. Eliminate that from your thoughts.
I'm not trying to pull the wool over their eyes but it is like pulling teeth, I can tell you. And I would LOVE to see a group policy that specifically allows any driver to drive any car in the fleet on the Nordschleife that isn't related to a company that specialises in driving there.
I'm still waiting for Slack, Harry & Company to get back to me. Unsurprisingly.
I'm glad that you, me and a couple of others here understand the issue. I'll summarise once more for those not reading the whole thread:
- OP has a road policy
- TF day on Nordsleife is a 'road', but many road policies specifically exclude it
- The OP's policy doesn't specifically exclude it (see quote below), so he wants it in writing that they do cover it
- He's asked them if they will
- They said 'no'.
- He asked 'why? please prove that you can refuse by reference to the T's&C's of my contract'.
- He's now waiting for them to finish reading and re-readin the T+C's trying to find a getout.
- There will be one of three outcomes:
1 - They find a clause proving they can refuse cover. Case closed.
2 - They can't find such a clause and therefore are forced to confirm in writing that they will cover. Case closed.
3 - They can't find such a clause but stomp their feet and still say 'no' in which case the OP can apply more pressure if he chooses to.
It's simple really. No grey areas. No wool being pulled.
Here's the quote I referred to in bullet point 2:
Fireblade69 re his policy said:
I read through the entire policy and the only thing that came remotely close was the exclusion for:
Rally
Competition
Motor Trial
On a racetrack
On a circuit; or (bad use of semi-colon there)
On a prepared course
Now, the Nurburgring GmBH go to great pains to explain that the Nordschleife is neither a racetrack nor a circuit but is it a prepared course?
Rally
Competition
Motor Trial
On a racetrack
On a circuit; or (bad use of semi-colon there)
On a prepared course
Now, the Nurburgring GmBH go to great pains to explain that the Nordschleife is neither a racetrack nor a circuit but is it a prepared course?
Olivera said:
Despite what your broker and insurance company might say, they MUST pay out any 3rd party claims on the Nordschleife under EU law, regardless if it is excluded either verbally or in the policy.
Oh go on then, I will bite Which article in Directive 2009/103/EC says that ? A number of exclusions are void, yes, in article 13 "Exclusion Clauses". But no mention of track days or being a road or not.
Whilst the Road Traffic Act, and Article 75 might make it so for the UK, I am not so sure that the EU law requires this.
The "Right of Direct Action" against the insurer only applies to Bodily Injury.
Sorry about the lack of progress, I've been in India for a couple of weeks. They should have the Nordschleife over there; they don't give a flying crap about anything on the road!
Cows/tuc-tucs/lorries/mopeds with 4 people on them coming straight for you on the wrong side of a dual carriageway!
Anyway.
I've had a couple of discussions with my broker and the underwriter is still not budging. I do have a letter from them from which to work on which is:
"Your request to cover the policyholder whilst driving on the Nurburgring has been declined. Please refer you to the policy booklet under the heading " Exceptions which apply to your whole policy",section H, Rallies, competitions,trials and track use.
An explanation of how we have arrived at this decision is as detailed below;
Our private car policies, like the majority of private car policies, are designed for the everyday use of a car on the normal roads of the UK.
We appreciate that some customers, particularly those with higher performance vehicles, may wish to 'try' their cars on a racetrack or other form of driving circuit. In these circumstances we anticipate that the driver and/or vehicle's behaviour could markedly differ to that originally presented to us as the insurance risk, and upon which we calculated the premium. We have therefore excluded this use of the vehicle from our policy cover in common with many other insurers.
The policy wording exclusion we have used is broadly worded to give a complete idea of the type of use being excluded and to help eliminate any doubt that may arise in a customer's mind. We believe that our exclusion makes it clear to our customers that the use of a vehicle on any form of racetrack, circuit or prepared course is not covered. We have not specifically defined the words 'racetrack' or 'circuit', as we believe the normal meaning of these words, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, in relation to motor vehicles, clearly conveys the intention of our exclusion. In addition, we understand that many of the websites relating to these tracks and circuits generally have a section dealing with the specialist insurance requirements of such use and, at the very least, suggest that anyone contemplating such use should check with their vehicle insurer to establish whether they have any cover.
The full details of your enquiry , that the customer intends to drive on a public day, not a private, or track day were given to the underwriters and our decision is based on that information."
Now although it makes sense to them, it still seems to skirt the issue that the Nordschleife during a touristenfahrten session is not any of them things. I have written to Nurburgring GmBH to get their views and to the German equivalent of the road rozzers to get their take.
Once I have these then I will present my case to the insurers and if they are still being picky, I'll tell them I'm taking it up with the insurance ombudsman. If they still don't play ball, I'll actually take it up with the insurance ombudsman. All of which won't cost me any wedge but will be a pain in the arse.
Any more advice from you guys?
Cows/tuc-tucs/lorries/mopeds with 4 people on them coming straight for you on the wrong side of a dual carriageway!
Anyway.
I've had a couple of discussions with my broker and the underwriter is still not budging. I do have a letter from them from which to work on which is:
"Your request to cover the policyholder whilst driving on the Nurburgring has been declined. Please refer you to the policy booklet under the heading " Exceptions which apply to your whole policy",section H, Rallies, competitions,trials and track use.
An explanation of how we have arrived at this decision is as detailed below;
Our private car policies, like the majority of private car policies, are designed for the everyday use of a car on the normal roads of the UK.
We appreciate that some customers, particularly those with higher performance vehicles, may wish to 'try' their cars on a racetrack or other form of driving circuit. In these circumstances we anticipate that the driver and/or vehicle's behaviour could markedly differ to that originally presented to us as the insurance risk, and upon which we calculated the premium. We have therefore excluded this use of the vehicle from our policy cover in common with many other insurers.
The policy wording exclusion we have used is broadly worded to give a complete idea of the type of use being excluded and to help eliminate any doubt that may arise in a customer's mind. We believe that our exclusion makes it clear to our customers that the use of a vehicle on any form of racetrack, circuit or prepared course is not covered. We have not specifically defined the words 'racetrack' or 'circuit', as we believe the normal meaning of these words, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, in relation to motor vehicles, clearly conveys the intention of our exclusion. In addition, we understand that many of the websites relating to these tracks and circuits generally have a section dealing with the specialist insurance requirements of such use and, at the very least, suggest that anyone contemplating such use should check with their vehicle insurer to establish whether they have any cover.
The full details of your enquiry , that the customer intends to drive on a public day, not a private, or track day were given to the underwriters and our decision is based on that information."
Now although it makes sense to them, it still seems to skirt the issue that the Nordschleife during a touristenfahrten session is not any of them things. I have written to Nurburgring GmBH to get their views and to the German equivalent of the road rozzers to get their take.
Once I have these then I will present my case to the insurers and if they are still being picky, I'll tell them I'm taking it up with the insurance ombudsman. If they still don't play ball, I'll actually take it up with the insurance ombudsman. All of which won't cost me any wedge but will be a pain in the arse.
Any more advice from you guys?
Not really any more advice.
See the blue sign on the pole.
As I understand it that sign means you are entering a public road and road laws apply. If you can get the Germans to confirm that it might help. Also the very clear freeway sign and the speed limit, also add to the idea that a reasonable person would believe it to be a road. Which it is.
Essentially you need to keep presenting them with information showing why it's not a racetrack. And if they are using the "Prepared Course" words can they define what that looks like? And does it have signs up at the start which mean that you are entering a public road?
Confirm the sigh though before using it. I'm working from memory.
Edit: I think it means "express way entrance"
http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/zeichen.shtml
See the blue sign on the pole.
As I understand it that sign means you are entering a public road and road laws apply. If you can get the Germans to confirm that it might help. Also the very clear freeway sign and the speed limit, also add to the idea that a reasonable person would believe it to be a road. Which it is.
Essentially you need to keep presenting them with information showing why it's not a racetrack. And if they are using the "Prepared Course" words can they define what that looks like? And does it have signs up at the start which mean that you are entering a public road?
Confirm the sigh though before using it. I'm working from memory.
Edit: I think it means "express way entrance"
http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/zeichen.shtml
Edited by Munter on Thursday 15th July 18:01
Great, thanks for that. I'll check my photo stash and see if there are any of that. I have got one of some German rozzers checking vehicles on the other side of the barrier.
I'm also thinking of using examples from around the EU of roads that are used as courses. Mulsanne at Le Mans and Monaco spring to mind and in the UK, Olivers Mount in Scarborough, the Northwest 200 in Northern Ireland - all circuits at some point and public roads as well.
The most interesting one came from a mate of mine who came up with a good one; the Isle of Man. Speed limit-less and also used as a race track but more interestingly, during the TT fortnight and especially during Mad Sunday it's turned into a public one way road with speed limits in certain sections and it's more than twice the length of the Nordschleife and is the definition of a prepared circuit. If you're an insurer, you can't cop out of paying up at that.
Also, as the insurance letter stated that they assessed the risk based on normal usage and did not expect this kind of use, then why did they say earlier in the response that they appreciated that people with high performance cars may wish to explore the performance?
I'm not going down without a fight
I'm also thinking of using examples from around the EU of roads that are used as courses. Mulsanne at Le Mans and Monaco spring to mind and in the UK, Olivers Mount in Scarborough, the Northwest 200 in Northern Ireland - all circuits at some point and public roads as well.
The most interesting one came from a mate of mine who came up with a good one; the Isle of Man. Speed limit-less and also used as a race track but more interestingly, during the TT fortnight and especially during Mad Sunday it's turned into a public one way road with speed limits in certain sections and it's more than twice the length of the Nordschleife and is the definition of a prepared circuit. If you're an insurer, you can't cop out of paying up at that.
Also, as the insurance letter stated that they assessed the risk based on normal usage and did not expect this kind of use, then why did they say earlier in the response that they appreciated that people with high performance cars may wish to explore the performance?
I'm not going down without a fight
Fireblade69 said:
Now although it makes sense to them, it still seems to skirt the issue that the Nordschleife during a touristenfahrten session is not any of them things. I have written to Nurburgring GmBH to get their views and to the German equivalent of the road rozzers to get their take.
Once I have these then I will present my case to the insurers and if they are still being picky, I'll tell them I'm taking it up with the insurance ombudsman. If they still don't play ball, I'll actually take it up with the insurance ombudsman. All of which won't cost me any wedge but will be a pain in the arse.
Any more advice from you guys?
Nice one. You're doing it the right way IMO. Keep going and keep posting updates.Once I have these then I will present my case to the insurers and if they are still being picky, I'll tell them I'm taking it up with the insurance ombudsman. If they still don't play ball, I'll actually take it up with the insurance ombudsman. All of which won't cost me any wedge but will be a pain in the arse.
Any more advice from you guys?
PS - I'd bet a pound to a penny that the underwriter has (or is in the process of) amending their standard wording on policy documents to specifically exclude Touristfarten days. However, even if they wrote that I don't know whether it would be legal; since they would be saying "we'll insure you on the road, but no that road". Which is like not insuring people to go on motorways, or some equally daft specific exclusion of a legal road.
Anyway, keep doing what you're doing! :-)
Fireblade69 said:
Great, thanks for that. I'll check my photo stash and see if there are any of that. I have got one of some German rozzers checking vehicles on the other side of the barrier.
Here's my own phone photo of it. Not great quality mind you and a few people milling about makes the scene a bit confusing.
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.
"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.
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.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!
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."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.
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
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.
That list of exclusions is fine. It's clear the 'ring is out of bounds. But without trying to be pedants people have read their policy documents. Read the list of exclusions and from that (without trying to be clever) have gone: "Excellent none of those are a description of the 'ring, so I'm insured". Only for the insurer to disagree later."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.
It's clearly not a race circuit. The police do not patrol race circuits to ensure you're driving within the law.
So it comes under some other exclusion?
A prepared course? To me that's something like, some cone's on an airfield, a trials course, a grass track, possibly even a long driveway etc. But again not something where road laws apply, with legally enforceable speed limit sections etc.
If you have to define what a "prepared course" is to the average policy holder, then using the words "prepared course" is too vague to apply to driving on the 'ring. According to the signage at the toll gates. The 'ring is an Expressway. Now if "prepared course" means expressway...that's a lot of roads in Germany that are not covered!
Part of the problem here is that maybe you are expecting a "simple" answer. And sadly, it is never going to be simple. Which is why there is a grey area, and probably always will be a grey area. Yes, most race tracks don't have police. But then most roads (even the Mulsanne straight) don't have Porsche and Ferrari testing there, and the North Circular hasn't held that many Grand Prix !
If we just look at the UK, then there is no standard "road". It is possible for a piece of tarmac to be a road, or not a road, to suit different purposes. E.g. do you need tax, MOT, insurance, can you speed / drink drive ?
And even if you do decide on something being a road, there is absolutely nothing that says all liability on roads transfers to the insurer. Yes, some things cannot (via the RTA) be used by the insurer to duck liability. E.g. times of travel. Contrary to one of the above posts the idea that "you can drive on that road but not this one" is not that far removed from "you can drive from 8am to 6pm".
However, some things DO allow the insurer to avoid liability.
Just to illustrate "there are no simple answers", consider this. If you steal your neighbours car to drive to the pub, then their insurer is liable for your actions in statue (Joy Riding is SD&P !). If your neighbour lends you their car, adds you as a driver, and they don't have business cover, and you use it to go to a business meeting, then they are not. Mad, but true.
And this is the important thing, levels of liability….
Firstly, contractual liability. Does the wording of you policy mean you are covered. Secondly, statutory liability. That is, is there any law which requires, over and above the contract, the insurer to cover you. In the UK, this is the Road Traffic Act, and it makes certain exclusions null and void for the purposes of third party claims. In the UK we have a third level of liability, that of Agreement under Article 75.
Another important distinction is between various forms of liability. The most obvious stems from negligence and results in either property damage, or personal injury. i.e. you get it wrong and hit someone. I am not all that convinced that Property Damage is going to be *that* easy to prove on the basis of negligence. Are there different duties of care at the Ring to say, a street in Munich ? Who knows, because there is no case law.
Then there is liability from a contract. And there are not that many policies that cover that, in fact most exclude it. i.e. if you agree that you will be liable for something, negligent or not, then that is contractual not negligence based.
Under what liability is damage to the Ring Armco etc ? Is it contractual ? Is it based on if the accident was your fault ? Is it indeed statutory ?
So, back to the Ring….
Firstly, "proving" that it is road for the purposes of traffic offences does not necessarily mean it is a road for other purposes.
Secondly, a judge, given confusion in the contract, is likely to look at the intent. And as the underwriter has said, it was never their intention to insure such events. Most of the underwriters I have spoken to fail to see our problem, "It is a race track, I have seen it on the telly, that bloke crashed and got burned".
The FOS tend to be reactive, rather than proactive. They cannot "force" an insurer, they are not the regulator. And lets be clear, the FOS are not always on the side of the customer, they are pretty pragmatic.
The FSA is perhaps a better avenue. Any major policy exclusions must be clearly stated to the customer. And is this clear ? It is a race track (by its very nature - and probably would not fall under the definition of a "road" for UK purposes because it doesn't go anywhere, car parks etc are included under "roads" because of the "other public places" bit) that has aspects of a road on some days. Tricky. The underwriters intent "We don't care if there are police and speed limits, you ain't driving on a race track" and our view "There are tourist coaches pottering along and it isn't like any track day we have been on" are in conflict. I suspect that is the heart of the matter. So I would be moderately confident (with someone else's P&J) of suggesting that the exclusion is not clear, and thus not valid. But I would not, under any circumstances, bet MY car and house on that.
If the policy excludes "The Nordschleife" is this valid ? IMSHO Yes, it is perfectly valid. And Wikipedia is wrong, if that is where people are turning, although I suspect they are relying on the information from Leeds Solicitors. I have already pointed out the flaw in their argument, in that under EU legislation, "place" is not something that is null as an exclusion for TP liability purposes. The idea that an insurer has to cover any liability in the EU is incorrect I feel. I still think there is an outstanding question with regards Personal Injury claims, in that the injured party has a right of direct recourse to the Insurer (and even then the insurer still has all the defence available to the insured, such as "It wasn't their fault").
But I would suggest that PI claims are not all that regular, and really it is the Property Damage, and in particular the Armco/Fees that we are primarily worried about ?
If we just look at the UK, then there is no standard "road". It is possible for a piece of tarmac to be a road, or not a road, to suit different purposes. E.g. do you need tax, MOT, insurance, can you speed / drink drive ?
And even if you do decide on something being a road, there is absolutely nothing that says all liability on roads transfers to the insurer. Yes, some things cannot (via the RTA) be used by the insurer to duck liability. E.g. times of travel. Contrary to one of the above posts the idea that "you can drive on that road but not this one" is not that far removed from "you can drive from 8am to 6pm".
However, some things DO allow the insurer to avoid liability.
Just to illustrate "there are no simple answers", consider this. If you steal your neighbours car to drive to the pub, then their insurer is liable for your actions in statue (Joy Riding is SD&P !). If your neighbour lends you their car, adds you as a driver, and they don't have business cover, and you use it to go to a business meeting, then they are not. Mad, but true.
And this is the important thing, levels of liability….
Firstly, contractual liability. Does the wording of you policy mean you are covered. Secondly, statutory liability. That is, is there any law which requires, over and above the contract, the insurer to cover you. In the UK, this is the Road Traffic Act, and it makes certain exclusions null and void for the purposes of third party claims. In the UK we have a third level of liability, that of Agreement under Article 75.
Another important distinction is between various forms of liability. The most obvious stems from negligence and results in either property damage, or personal injury. i.e. you get it wrong and hit someone. I am not all that convinced that Property Damage is going to be *that* easy to prove on the basis of negligence. Are there different duties of care at the Ring to say, a street in Munich ? Who knows, because there is no case law.
Then there is liability from a contract. And there are not that many policies that cover that, in fact most exclude it. i.e. if you agree that you will be liable for something, negligent or not, then that is contractual not negligence based.
Under what liability is damage to the Ring Armco etc ? Is it contractual ? Is it based on if the accident was your fault ? Is it indeed statutory ?
So, back to the Ring….
Firstly, "proving" that it is road for the purposes of traffic offences does not necessarily mean it is a road for other purposes.
Secondly, a judge, given confusion in the contract, is likely to look at the intent. And as the underwriter has said, it was never their intention to insure such events. Most of the underwriters I have spoken to fail to see our problem, "It is a race track, I have seen it on the telly, that bloke crashed and got burned".
The FOS tend to be reactive, rather than proactive. They cannot "force" an insurer, they are not the regulator. And lets be clear, the FOS are not always on the side of the customer, they are pretty pragmatic.
The FSA is perhaps a better avenue. Any major policy exclusions must be clearly stated to the customer. And is this clear ? It is a race track (by its very nature - and probably would not fall under the definition of a "road" for UK purposes because it doesn't go anywhere, car parks etc are included under "roads" because of the "other public places" bit) that has aspects of a road on some days. Tricky. The underwriters intent "We don't care if there are police and speed limits, you ain't driving on a race track" and our view "There are tourist coaches pottering along and it isn't like any track day we have been on" are in conflict. I suspect that is the heart of the matter. So I would be moderately confident (with someone else's P&J) of suggesting that the exclusion is not clear, and thus not valid. But I would not, under any circumstances, bet MY car and house on that.
If the policy excludes "The Nordschleife" is this valid ? IMSHO Yes, it is perfectly valid. And Wikipedia is wrong, if that is where people are turning, although I suspect they are relying on the information from Leeds Solicitors. I have already pointed out the flaw in their argument, in that under EU legislation, "place" is not something that is null as an exclusion for TP liability purposes. The idea that an insurer has to cover any liability in the EU is incorrect I feel. I still think there is an outstanding question with regards Personal Injury claims, in that the injured party has a right of direct recourse to the Insurer (and even then the insurer still has all the defence available to the insured, such as "It wasn't their fault").
But I would suggest that PI claims are not all that regular, and really it is the Property Damage, and in particular the Armco/Fees that we are primarily worried about ?
Noger said:
But I would suggest that PI claims are not all that regular, and really it is the Property Damage, and in particular the Armco/Fees that we are primarily worried about ?
Its not that tough to get 'ring insurance, just that unsuprisingly folks who have cover dont want to shout about it in case that door closes, & there are only a couple of companies in the UK that will handle it, other than that its register ya car in Germany time & get German insurance which will cover you, but for many of us with modded track cars is not really posible.
Edited by iguana on Friday 23 July 17:26
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff