Caterham being sued??
Discussion
I can't imagine Caterham admitting liability as well.
Surely it is up to the driver to check his car is prepared for the track and if he is driving on the track. That to me would me he is giving it the best he can. As the cars are race proved I don't really see where the claim would go. Caterham were not driving the car and did not do the pre track preparation.
Going on the race track is a high risk business and that is why standard insurance does not cover this activity.
I feel sorry for the guys situation, but I don't really see how he can blame Caterham on this.
Surely it is up to the driver to check his car is prepared for the track and if he is driving on the track. That to me would me he is giving it the best he can. As the cars are race proved I don't really see where the claim would go. Caterham were not driving the car and did not do the pre track preparation.
Going on the race track is a high risk business and that is why standard insurance does not cover this activity.
I feel sorry for the guys situation, but I don't really see how he can blame Caterham on this.
agtlaw said:
gingerpaul said:
Has this point ever been tested in court?
yes.So insurers are able to exclude specific bits of public road from their policies? Is there not a requirement to provide 3rd party insurance to anywhere that is in the territories covered, or does the exclusion mean that there is no cover whatsoever in force? If there is no cover and you are driving on the Nordschleife, a public road, could you be procescuted for driving without insurance?
Along similar lines, would an insurer be able to exclude, for example, the M1 if they felt like it?
gingerpaul said:
agtlaw said:
gingerpaul said:
Has this point ever been tested in court?
yes.So insurers are able to exclude specific bits of public road from their policies? Is there not a requirement to provide 3rd party insurance to anywhere that is in the territories covered, or does the exclusion mean that there is no cover whatsoever in force? If there is no cover and you are driving on the Nordschleife, a public road, could you be procescuted for driving without insurance?
Along similar lines, would an insurer be able to exclude, for example, the M1 if they felt like it?
gingerpaul said:
will_ said:
I'm not 100%, but my understanding is that the insurer cannot refuse to payout for a third party claim even at the Ring, as it's a public road. However they can then claim that payout from the individual.
That's what I thought. I'm happy to be corrected though.will_ said:
If that's correct the net effect is the same though - the individual still pays for the third party's claim.
I would have thought that if a car is covered by 3rd party cover then a passenger would claim on that rather than suing the driver. It is no different to someone claiming for whiplash as a passenger in a car whose driver (with 3rd party insurance only) has just gone into the back of someone else is it? Otherwise what's the point of having 3rd party insurance.Nifty said:
Wookie,
My previous posts point out the position of my oil pipes, the mention of my sump pan wear and gearbox height were additional information in response to another post.
My R400 uses exactly the same dry sump system as the K R500 and I believe the Duratec also has a very similar layout.
Sorry I thought you were responding to my post with those comments!My previous posts point out the position of my oil pipes, the mention of my sump pan wear and gearbox height were additional information in response to another post.
My R400 uses exactly the same dry sump system as the K R500 and I believe the Duratec also has a very similar layout.
My K-series race car wet sump certainly takes a pounding, although it does seem to endure it well, but I can't remember if my C400 race car with dry sump (I believe a different configuration to the more recent race and road cars) suffered as much. I remember seeing a few scuffs when I was racing, but nothing drastic and I haven't run it since. I never had any oil leaks with the Duratec, in fact it was the crank sensor wire that was usually the first point of failure through bottoming out.
The sump pan was replaced recently during a rebuild so I'll keep an eye on it.
Edited by The Wookie on Wednesday 7th September 12:28
gingerpaul said:
will_ said:
If that's correct the net effect is the same though - the individual still pays for the third party's claim.
I would have thought that if a car is covered by 3rd party cover then a passenger would claim on that rather than suing the driver. It is no different to someone claiming for whiplash as a passenger in a car whose driver (with 3rd party insurance only) has just gone into the back of someone else is it? Otherwise what's the point of having 3rd party insurance.will_ said:
Indeed, but as I said "However they can then claim that payout from the individual". In other words, the insurer pays out to the third party, and then seeks recovery of that payout from the individual, who knew that their cover excluded the Ring. In that way the third party cannot have been excluded, but the insurer is allowed to recover any costs payable. The difference is, the insurer will be able to cover the full cost of the third party claim, but the individual may not be able to. Hence the "net effect" being much the same.
Aha, I see what you mean. 
will_ said:
Indeed, but as I said "However they can then claim that payout from the individual". In other words, the insurer pays out to the third party, and then seeks recovery of that payout from the individual, who knew that their cover excluded the Ring. In that way the third party cannot have been excluded, but the insurer is allowed to recover any costs payable. The difference is, the insurer will be able to cover the full cost of the third party claim, but the individual may not be able to. Hence the "net effect" being much the same.
so does a typical policy expressly exclude the nurburgring, if not, how do you know it is excluded?zebedee said:
will_ said:
Indeed, but as I said "However they can then claim that payout from the individual". In other words, the insurer pays out to the third party, and then seeks recovery of that payout from the individual, who knew that their cover excluded the Ring. In that way the third party cannot have been excluded, but the insurer is allowed to recover any costs payable. The difference is, the insurer will be able to cover the full cost of the third party claim, but the individual may not be able to. Hence the "net effect" being much the same.
so does a typical policy expressly exclude the nurburgring, if not, how do you know it is excluded?If it's not excluded (expressly or by implication), then presumably you're covered. I don't, off the top of my head, know of any UK insurer who doesn't exclude the Ring now though.
dazco said:
agtlaw said:
9 pages of uninformed speculation is pretty good going. even for pistonheads.
It is a little like banging ones head against a wall isn't it?
The ones that really get me are the "I haven't read any of the other posts but surely... [insert obvious speculation based on the loosest sense of the facts, and which has already been debated, pointlessly, for several pages]"
Sospan seems to win the award so far...
Caterham are strictly liable to driver (purchaser) under the Sale of Goods Act, and passenger under the Consumer Protection Act, if they have sold a defective product which causes injury. That's the law. Negligence doesn't really enter into it. I suspect Caterham did concede liability because expert engineering evdence has proved there was a defect in the car.
A sports car sold as a track racer that grounds an oil pipe which causes a crash appears to me to be a defectively designed or built product.
People who say they wouldn't sue haven't had to face financial ruin and fall back on inadequate state support (ie being looked after by their families if they are lucky)after suffering serious brain injury. I do declare an interest both as a lawyer and trustee of a brain injury charity.
A sports car sold as a track racer that grounds an oil pipe which causes a crash appears to me to be a defectively designed or built product.
People who say they wouldn't sue haven't had to face financial ruin and fall back on inadequate state support (ie being looked after by their families if they are lucky)after suffering serious brain injury. I do declare an interest both as a lawyer and trustee of a brain injury charity.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff