'Ring Trip 28th - 30th May Crash. - M5 U.K. Car !
Discussion
This is almost the worst case scenario (at least nobody was killed) and the reason I'd never dare drive on the Ring, much though I would love to.
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
Dog Star said:
This is almost the worst case scenario (at least nobody was killed) and the reason I'd never dare drive on the Ring, much though I would love to.
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
They are insured. Insurers are required to cover all 3rd party losses under EU law.I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
TEKNOPUG said:
Dog Star said:
This is almost the worst case scenario (at least nobody was killed) and the reason I'd never dare drive on the Ring, much though I would love to.
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
They are insured. Insurers are required to cover all 3rd party losses under EU law.I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
The average UK driver still carries the financial risk if he was undertaking an activity not allowed on his policy (which comes down to how you and they want to interpret some vague bit's of english
). Yes EU law ensures that all 3rd parties claims are covered. But that's different to the driver having insurance against his risk. One satisfies the legal aspect of driving on the road. The other insures you against the risk of having to pay for that.And it's the 2nd bit I think people are talking about when they say "possibly not insured". Less legal term and more financial term.
Fingers crossed he knew what he was doing and has a policy that doesn't specifically exclude the 'ring, and / or anything the insurance company can twist to seem like it.
Munter said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Dog Star said:
This is almost the worst case scenario (at least nobody was killed) and the reason I'd never dare drive on the Ring, much though I would love to.
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
They are insured. Insurers are required to cover all 3rd party losses under EU law.I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
The average UK driver still carries the financial risk if he was undertaking an activity not allowed on his policy (which comes down to how you and they want to interpret some vague bit's of english
). Yes EU law ensures that all 3rd parties claims are covered. But that's different to the driver having insurance against his risk. One satisfies the legal aspect of driving on the road. The other insures you against the risk of having to pay for that.And it's the 2nd bit I think people are talking about when they say "possibly not insured". Less legal term and more financial term.
Fingers crossed he knew what he was doing and has a policy that doesn't specifically exclude the 'ring, and / or anything the insurance company can twist to seem like it.
Dog Star said:
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
Brits are insured if they cause damage to a 3rd party, so there is no reason why the their insurance would be checked beforehand by anyone working there.TEKNOPUG said:
This is true but I replying to the following statement:
Ah right yes I see. They don't check because what they would check satisfies the legal requirement and in no way presents a risk to others. Agreed.Dog Star said:
I'd like to know if other countries drivers are covered by their insurance - in other words is it just the Brits who are bombing around the place with no cover. If that's the case then maybe the owners of the track should be checking insurance before letting cars on there?
Brits are insured if they cause damage to a 3rd party, so there is no reason why the their insurance would be checked beforehand by anyone working there.I wonder if Dog Star means do the Dutch/Belgiums/French etc have the same interesting problem with the insurance companies as UK. And I think the answer is no it's plain sailing as they follow the rules and go "If Germany says it's a road. It's a road." But have no actual proof or understanding of what happens with their claims.
Munter said:
I wonder if Dog Star means do the Dutch/Belgiums/French etc have the same interesting problem with the insurance companies as UK. And I think the answer is no it's plain sailing as they follow the rules and go "If Germany says it's a road. It's a road." But have no actual proof or understanding of what happens with their claims.
That is correct. To my mind - and I certainly wouldn't want to find out (and especially NOT like the poor chap in the M5) - if a UK policy was to say specifically that "derestricted toll roads"/Nordschliefe/Nurburgring were excluded then tbh that sounds quite explicit to me. Every policy I've had for years has this on it (as has the current AIG through Flux). I certainly wouldn't want to be arguing the toss with my insurer after the event. I'm sure that some foreign insured PHer will be able to tell us what his/her policy says.Mu heart really goes out to the bloke in the M5 (and everyone else involved). It really makes me feel a bit ill.
If the M5 dumped fluid on the track, and it caused an accident, then it is likely that his insurers will pay out to the third parties and for the track damage/lost time/air ambulance etc, but they will then sue the M5 driver for their money back.
He will be paying for all of the damage, one way or another. If he cannot pay, and has a house, they will bankrupt him and it will be sold.
How can it be that a 'random' occurence of a car dropping fluid can leave an insured owner out of pocket?
I know people will say he should maintain his car well etc etc but if we just agree that dropping fluid (esp when pushed hard at the Ring) is an event so remote from the drivers control that it can be considered to be 'random'.
How can he be left out of pocket? Doesn't seem fair somehow as there should be a mechanism in place to allow people to protect themselves from the potentially devestating financial impacts of a random event like this.
I know people will say he should maintain his car well etc etc but if we just agree that dropping fluid (esp when pushed hard at the Ring) is an event so remote from the drivers control that it can be considered to be 'random'.
How can he be left out of pocket? Doesn't seem fair somehow as there should be a mechanism in place to allow people to protect themselves from the potentially devestating financial impacts of a random event like this.
mrmr96 said:
How can it be that a 'random' occurence of a car dropping fluid can leave an insured owner out of pocket?
I know people will say he should maintain his car well etc etc but if we just agree that dropping fluid (esp when pushed hard at the Ring) is an event so remote from the drivers control that it can be considered to be 'random'.
How can he be left out of pocket? Doesn't seem fair somehow as there should be a mechanism in place to allow people to protect themselves from the potentially devestating financial impacts of a random event like this.
There is, it's called insurance.I know people will say he should maintain his car well etc etc but if we just agree that dropping fluid (esp when pushed hard at the Ring) is an event so remote from the drivers control that it can be considered to be 'random'.
How can he be left out of pocket? Doesn't seem fair somehow as there should be a mechanism in place to allow people to protect themselves from the potentially devestating financial impacts of a random event like this.
He wasn't allegedly covered, presumably as his ins co specifically excluded it.
mrmr96 said:
How can it be that a 'random' occurence of a car dropping fluid can leave an insured owner out of pocket?
I know people will say he should maintain his car well etc etc but if we just agree that dropping fluid (esp when pushed hard at the Ring) is an event so remote from the drivers control that it can be considered to be 'random'.
How can he be left out of pocket? Doesn't seem fair somehow as there should be a mechanism in place to allow people to protect themselves from the potentially devestating financial impacts of a random event like this.
If YOUR car drops fluid it's YOUR responsibility. If a biker hits it they may very well end up "brown bread".I know people will say he should maintain his car well etc etc but if we just agree that dropping fluid (esp when pushed hard at the Ring) is an event so remote from the drivers control that it can be considered to be 'random'.
How can he be left out of pocket? Doesn't seem fair somehow as there should be a mechanism in place to allow people to protect themselves from the potentially devestating financial impacts of a random event like this.
In this event, YOU are responsible, and YOU pick up the tab. And rightly so. If you can't or won't pay then you shouldn't take part.
I would NEVER risk a lap of the 'Ring now unless I had specific insurance to cover me - I've done it, but the enjoyment gained was cancelled out a thousand fold by the fear of the consequences to my life if something happened.
It's just not worth it.
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st June 15:27
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st June 15:27
Soovy said:
but they will then sue the M5 driver for their money back. He will be paying for all of the damage, one way or another. If he cannot pay, and has a house, they will bankrupt him and it will be sold.
interesting. can't say i've ever dealt with a nurburgring case where any of that EVER happened. still, i'm sure you know better as you're plainly a forum "expert". well done. On what grounds would the insurance company sue the insured. In contract? Which term of the insurance contract has he breached (provided the 'Ring is not explicitly excluded)? They can't sue in the tort of negligence as they have no locus standi to bring the action. The duty of care if one is owed at all,is owed to other road users. And what exactly is that duty? Perhaps to keep his vehicle MOT'ed and to not knowingly operate it on a public road if he suspects that it doesn't comply MOT standards notwithstanding that it has one? More often than not it is the reverse - a case of subrogation whereby the insurer pays out to the insured and then assumes the insured's locus standi to bring an action against a third party, generally in tort.
Penguinracer said:
On what grounds would the insurance company sue the insured. In contract? Which term of the insurance contract has he breached (provided the 'Ring is not explicitly excluded)? They can't sue in the tort of negligence as they have no locus standi to bring the action. The duty of care if one is owed at all,is owed to other road users. And what exactly is that duty? Perhaps to keep his vehicle MOT'ed and to not knowingly operate it on a public road if he suspects that it doesn't comply MOT standards notwithstanding that it has one? More often than not it is the reverse - a case of subrogation whereby the insurer pays out to the insured and then assumes the insured's locus standi to bring an action against a third party, generally in tort.
The 'ring is specifically excluded. There are no UK insurers that do not specifically exclude it.Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff