the ring, insurance questions
Discussion
fergus said:
nsa said:
philhughes said:
REIS insurance do track day cover on everywhere BUT the ring. If they find out you've been on the ring on a TF day they will cancel your cover even if there was no claim!!
Yep.GC8 said:
Nothing to do with quoting. They have clearly stated that if they cover you and later discover that you have driven around the Nordschleife, that they will cancel your insurance policy.
Agreed. I didn't see how failing to quote for you was relevant.I'm not sure how your policy can be cancelled purely for doing something they state they don't cover anyway? From a contracts perspective, this sounds like an unfair/unenforcable contract...
Do you mean fail to renew once the current contract has expired, or cancel mid term? The two are very different propositions.
fergus said:
GC8 said:
Nothing to do with quoting. They have clearly stated that if they cover you and later discover that you have driven around the Nordschleife, that they will cancel your insurance policy.
Agreed. I didn't see how failing to quote for you was relevant.I'm not sure how your policy can be cancelled purely for doing something they state they don't cover anyway? From a contracts perspective, this sounds like an unfair/unenforcable contract...
Do you mean fail to renew once the current contract has expired, or cancel mid term? The two are very different propositions.
If there was an accident, the insurance company would have to pay out and then go through court to get the money back from the customer.
How do you reduce the risk of something like that happening ? Don't cover people who go on the 'Ring.
Otherwise, what is stopping them doing again during the cover term, exposing the insurance company to risks they did not sign up for ?
fergus said:
GC8 said:
Nothing to do with quoting. They have clearly stated that if they cover you and later discover that you have driven around the Nordschleife, that they will cancel your insurance policy.
Agreed. I didn't see how failing to quote for you was relevant.I'm not sure how your policy can be cancelled purely for doing something they state they don't cover anyway? From a contracts perspective, this sounds like an unfair/unenforcable contract...
Do you mean fail to renew once the current contract has expired, or cancel mid term? The two are very different propositions.
This suggests that theyre threatening to cancel the policy mid-term. I also suspect that theyre on rocky ground there, but as I didnt insure with REIS for other reasons it doesnt worry me too much.
Sounds like some trolley dolly who is not fully aware of the repercussions. I am guessing here but I would have thought you would have a good case under the unfair contract terms/conditions 1977.
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
Pip
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
Pip
Pip1968 said:
Sounds like some trolley dolly who is not fully aware of the repercussions. I am guessing here but I would have thought you would have a good case under the unfair contract terms/conditions 1977.
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
fergus said:
Pip1968 said:
Sounds like some trolley dolly who is not fully aware of the repercussions. I am guessing here but I would have thought you would have a good case under the unfair contract terms/conditions 1977.
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
I didn't read the post I quoted properly. I meant that REIS won't quote you if you tell them you are even planning to go to the Nurburgring, on the basis they're not obliged to. Wasn't strictly relevant though.
The lady I spoke to at REIS said she'd like to see the Ring closed down for TF, which is nice.
The lady I spoke to at REIS said she'd like to see the Ring closed down for TF, which is nice.
Was at the ring on TF day a couple of months ago with the M3 cutters guys. The track was closed 3 times in a row, mainly motorcyclists doing pirouettes into the trees ! None of us could get insurance, drove two in a car as you need to keep lookout for idiots, there are plenty on there. The way in to the track is bedlam on a public day but pure car porn heaven. Just do it, drive carefully and have someone ride shotgun, it will be fine !! However, as everyone else says it can be expensive it it goes wrong. The guys at RSR race school say the ring is just a cash cow for the owners as it costs you a fortune if you crash !!
tertius said:
Well, it was a bloke who said exactly the same to me, so hardly a "trolley dolly" (though what relevance that term has to an insurance broker I am not sure). Pretty sure it is now standard REIS policy.
Trolley dollys can be male or female these days. It is all part of the 'everyone is equal, everyone is a winner', ethos that pervades our schools and country. So follows my daughter's "I am not competing with Charlie" (my step son) and my reply that she was competing with everyone.The relevance was the perception that trolley dollys are air heads not using their minds but their 'good looks'. I doubt very much the insurer's comment would stand up in the European courts.
Pip
Pip1968 said:
Sounds like some trolley dolly who is not fully aware of the repercussions. I am guessing here but I would have thought you would have a good case under the unfair contract terms/conditions 1977.
Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
Pip
I assume you are not aware that UCTA has a specific exemption for insurance. Anyway...Whilst her reasons may be good she probably needs to rephrase it. They may be able to cancel after a claim (Third party only obviously) but I cannot see how they would get away with it otherwise.
Pip
The policy will certainly have a clause that allows both parties to cancel.
I would imagine you would have far more luck with the FOS than you would with a court. Unless it was very clearly stated that this would happen, it would seem unfair.
So, I'm heading off on a European Roadtrip in a week's time, and it seems rude not to visit the 'ring.
I have read a large number of threads on different sites, and as posted here it seems like the situation is basically that when you drive round the ring on a TF day, you are effectively uninsured - or rather, you are insured as your insurance company has a legal obligation to provide 3rd Party cover, but they are then likely to recover the costs from you.
My plan is to do a lap or two, based on the principle of "drive it like it's uninsured" rather than "drive it like you stole it", and if it's raining, to probably steer clear.
That said, whilst it doesn't cover 3rd party damages, is something like this http://www.nurburgmotorsport.com/Insurance.html advisable purely to cover track damage if the worst happens? Or is it generally the case that since you're not covered for 3rd party damages that it's not really worth it anyway since the costs in comparison are huge?
I have read a large number of threads on different sites, and as posted here it seems like the situation is basically that when you drive round the ring on a TF day, you are effectively uninsured - or rather, you are insured as your insurance company has a legal obligation to provide 3rd Party cover, but they are then likely to recover the costs from you.
My plan is to do a lap or two, based on the principle of "drive it like it's uninsured" rather than "drive it like you stole it", and if it's raining, to probably steer clear.
That said, whilst it doesn't cover 3rd party damages, is something like this http://www.nurburgmotorsport.com/Insurance.html advisable purely to cover track damage if the worst happens? Or is it generally the case that since you're not covered for 3rd party damages that it's not really worth it anyway since the costs in comparison are huge?
davetibbs said:
this http://www.nu***ort.com/Insurance.html advisable purely to cover track damage if the worst happens? Or is it generally the case that since you're not covered for 3rd party damages that it's not really worth it anyway since the costs in comparison are huge?
useless. no longer available anyway. the scam, sorry "scheme" was attached to a mandatory inspection from the garage providing the insurance policy at your cost. crazy that a garage would be an insurance broker. properly regulated? i doubt it.Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff