Nurburgring & Insurance

[Fireblade69]

Hi guys,

I've been to the Nordschleife a few times on public days but it's getting a bit scary. I don't mind wrecking a £1000 car but the 3rd party claims do worry me now I'm a bit more growed up and responsible :-)

I've been checking the insurance route and I've seen a few for and against arguments regarding claims, some recovered costs where others were left holding the baby. So I thought I'd check it out with my insurers and called them up. They suggested that I should talk to my broker as they were experts in this so I sent them an email with the following text:

"I am taking time out to visit Europe in September. Can you confirm that I will be covered for driving in France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium & Germany for a period of 10 days beginning September 28th. Can you also detail any restrictions on driving in those countries such as areas or countries that are excluded from the policy or that may have restrictions such as German unlimited speed roads?"

Their written response was:

".....automatically provides 31 days foreign use in any insurance year within EU coiuntries - There are no specific restrictions. You must take your certificate of motor...." yadda yadda yadda.

They refered me to sections in the policy that detail sections on customs, documents etc. all of which do not mention any restrictions. So, I dug some more.
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? So with the owners saying it's not a circuit and the Herman rozzers and go'ment agreeing, can the insurers argue against any possible claims?

Well, of course they can; they're insurers. The question is, with the above quite specific request to the broker, can they argue against that with any degree of legal right?

Thoughts & comments welcome but please keep to the point and avoid the , "...do a Nurburgring track day..." line because I do UK trackdays in a track car and this is a bit of fun with mates and the chance to drive the Green Hell again.

Edited by Fireblade69 on Thursday 17th June 22:52

[mrmr96]

You confuse me a bit with my impression of your attitude. On the one hand you want to make sure you won't be left with a big bill, which I see as good planning and responsible.

But on the other hand you're saying "Ah, buy you never told me I /couldn't/ go on the Ring!" and expect to be able to force them to pay out on that basis, which seems a bit childish and naiive.

If you want an honest answer then ask them honestly!! Tell them you want to drive on the Nurburgring on a Touristfarten (whatever) day and ask if they will cover you. Ask this in writing and be persistent if they knock you back - i.e. if their first response is 'no' ask them to provide the relevant section of your T&C's which says this. Then argue it from there.

I can tell you one thing for sure, I'd rather be arguing the 'what ifs' with my broker before I went, rather than after a crash!

My thoughts: Don't try to mess about. Tell them what you plan to do and ask if it's covered. Then get the answer in writing.

Edited by mrmr96 on Thursday 17th June 17:22

[Fireblade69]

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".
I know that the vagaries of insurance can be a bit one-sided but it can work both ways.

The legal question doesn't seem to be if they will pay out to a 3rd party in the event of an accident, they are legally obliged to do so. But, if they know about it then they may specifically exclude driving on it and asking them directly will flag that up. The end result of that is, there is no point in going so what I am trying to do is stay on the right side of grey but still have a little fun.

That said, I agree that your honesty attitude is the right one I'm just astonished that you are even entertaining the thought that the insurers will be okay with it. I'll certainly bear the up-front honesty card in mind though if it still stays grey, thanks for your input.

[V8mate]

My last few policies have specifically excluded the 'Ring. Sure you're not trawling through the small print and missing the exclusion in the large?

[Fireblade69]

Bloody good point but, no there's nothing there. I've been through every document sent to me by them ever. That won't stop me going back over it though, thanks.

[Olivera]

The Nurburgring Nordschleife is a one way toll road that is de-restricted at certain points. As I have stated on here before, any UK car insurance policy must legally provide 3rd party cover for the Nordschleife under EU law, regardless if it is specifically excluded in the terms and conditions of that policy. However if you do crash, and it was specifically excluded, the insurer can attempt to claim the 3rd party costs back from you.

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 17th June 19:46

[Munter]

Fireblade69 said:

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? So with the owners saying it's not a circuit and the Herman rozzers and go'ment agreeing, can the insurers argue against any possible claims?

In my opinion. No it is not. A prepared course to me means like a trials course, or some cones on an airfield.

However, it's a real possibility an insurer might disagree with that. And thus the case would have to go before the ombudsman which may take a few years....in that sort of case. And my belief would be that as the words "prepared course" do not fit a description of the nurburging (e.g. a public highway) you should win. However I don't know what the ombudsman might decide. You know. If that were the case.

[mrmr96]

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".
I know that the vagaries of insurance can be a bit one-sided but it can work both ways.

The legal question doesn't seem to be if they will pay out to a 3rd party in the event of an accident, they are legally obliged to do so. But, if they know about it then they may specifically exclude driving on it and asking them directly will flag that up. The end result of that is, there is no point in going so what I am trying to do is stay on the right side of grey but still have a little fun.

That said, I agree that your honesty attitude is the right one I'm just astonished that you are even entertaining the thought that the insurers will be okay with it. I'll certainly bear the up-front honesty card in mind though if it still stays grey, thanks for your input.

If you know deep down that you think they won't insure you there then surely you know that in the event of a claim they will wriggle out of it. Wouldn't you rather know where you stood before hand?

When I bought my sports car I got an insurance policy which excluded "races, rallies, time trials or some other stuff" can't remember what it said, but it excluded a load of stuff. Nothing mentioned about trackdays. I wanted to know if it would cover me if I did trackdays. So I rang and asked if trackdays would void it. The guy on the phone said "If it's not excluded then it's covered." However I was fully aware that they wouldn't pay out on the basis that I would say "But the guy on the phone said...". So I asked for it in writing, he stumbled a bit and told me to write in. So I wrote to head office and asked, and after a bit of correspondance they came back and said they didn't cover trackdays. My certificate specifically added "trackdays" to the list of exclusions the following year.

The bottom line is that I've been in a situation similar to yours. I would want something in black and white which I could take them to court with if I needed to. Why? Because I'm not in a position to pay out thousands, or hundreds of thousands of pounds to get stuff and people fixed up. So I'd rather know where I stand than be uninsured, but try to argue I am after the event.

In the end I bought stand alone trackday cover. You may find that you need to buy a special stand alone policy for what you're planning. But I would never risk going uninsured on the basis of a grey area!! I can't imagine you'd win in court on that, I wouldn't gamble on it. Maybe you like a gamble?

Good luck either way.

[fergus]

Olivera said:

The Nurburgring Nordschleife is a one way toll road that is de-restricted at certain points.

Restricted at certain points. There are a few points where there are speed limits on the circuit, other than that,it's derestricted...

[Fireblade69]

I've had track day insurance and they are quite interesting in themselves, still no 3rd party liability though but on the racetrack it's "tough call old bean." On Friday last week at a trackday, I saw a M3 E92 in the wall at Silverstone, very obviously written off and a Exige t-boned a GT3RS right in front of me so I know the pain is there but it's all acceptable risk on a trackday.

If I could get a policy for the Nordschleife then great but unless you're a German citizen, they are practically non-existent. Well, I've not found one and it's not through lack of trying.

Please understand that I am trying to play the rules but they're not making it easy. The first post tells you what I had from the insurance broker after asking a quite specific question. Does anyone think that if I say, "If I drive on the Nordschliefe on a touristenfahrten day will I be covered?" then the insurance broker/underwriter will be happy with that? I don't. Remember, the point is to get legally covered on there, not to try and get excluded so I can't go.

Oh, and the two ares of restriction on Dottinger Hohe and around Hotel are legally enforcable and sometimes policed with actual radar guns. It is a public road after all. :-D

Edited by Fireblade69 on Thursday 17th June 22:43

[Munter]

Fireblade69 said:

Does anyone think that if I say, "If I drive on the Nordschliefe on a touristenfahrten day will I be covered?" then the insurance broker/underwriter will be happy with that? I don't.

As has been pointed out before in the thread if you don't ask them that specific question. You will not know the anser to that specific question. And if they come back and say "No". Ask which bit of the policy wording excludes it. Then question that with them against what you know about the Nurburging and how the 2 things do not match. And go from there.

You cannot make a judgement call on this based on the vague wording of that insurance policy, or your vague question/answer with them.

[edh]

There are a small number of insurers who will specifically include 'ring cover. There are also still some insurers, although not many, who don't have an exclusion like the one you listed in the first post. I know personally of a case where third party claims were paid out without a problem a couple of years back, and another where a friend is being pursued by his insurer for a large third party claim.

If you ask your broker the specific question - "am I covered on the nurbugrging nordschleife (not GP track) on TF days?" you will have your answer. If it's a yes, then get it in writing.

Over the years the received wisdom was not to ask, because they will always say no, but I hear of several cases now where insurance companies are trying to use these general exclusions to recover third party claims from the insured. It appears to have got very legal, AGTLaw will be along in a minute probably. http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurburgring_insura... While the insurers may not have won yet, you still have the risk of months or years of legal battles, and all the stress and cost that goes with it.

Maybe your best bet is to transfer all your assets into your wife's name (if you're married) so that if an insurer bankrupts you you have nothing to lose....(seems to work for financial fraudsters / tax evaders although not so good if she divorces you ) I can't imagine coming back from a 'ring trip and telling my wife we had to sell the house because I'd had an accident & written off other cars / injured bikers.

Edited by edh on Friday 18th June 10:08

Edited by edh on Friday 18th June 11:48

[Fireblade69]

edh said:

...I can't imagine coming back from a 'ring trip and telling my wife we had to sell the house because I'd had an accident & written off other cars / injured bikers.

Yeah, that wouldn't be a good thing. I think wisdom prevailing, asking the direct question seems to be the accepted legal way to go.

Watch this space...

[Fireblade69]

"...the insurer would not have met the third party costs if it was not obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act. As such, I believe that it would be entitled to recover those costs from...."

Wouldn't that apply for for all claims relating to a 3rd party in accidents?

[mrmr96]

Fireblade69 said:

"...the insurer would not have met the third party costs if it was not obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act. As such, I believe that it would be entitled to recover those costs from...."

Wouldn't that apply for for all claims relating to a 3rd party in accidents?

No.

If you don't breach the T&C's then they pay out to the 3rd party and you are not pursued.

If you do breack the T&C's then they would like not to pay out, but the law compells them to do so. So they pay out to the 3rd party and recover the costs from you, which they are entitled to do because you broke the terms.

[Fireblade69]

Gotcha. So if I say I'm going to the Nurburgring and they don't have a problem with it, then they can't go crying to the ombudsman claiming foul.

[edh]

Good luck

[Fireblade69]

mrmr96 said:

Fireblade69 said:

"...the insurer would not have met the third party costs if it was not obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act. As such, I believe that it would be entitled to recover those costs from...."

Wouldn't that apply for for all claims relating to a 3rd party in accidents?

No.

If you don't breach the T&C's then they pay out to the 3rd party and you are not pursued.

If you do breack the T&C's then they would like not to pay out, but the law compells them to do so. So they pay out to the 3rd party and recover the costs from you, which they are entitled to do because you broke the terms.

So I suppose the question would be what terms and conditions did they break in order for the insurer to pursue them? It can't be for breach of an exclusion for driving on the Nordschleife because then it would have been excluded from the insurance and therefore they were driving without insurance which is a whole different game.

confused.com? Know why now :-(

[mrmr96]

Fireblade69 said:

mrmr96 said:

Fireblade69 said:

"...the insurer would not have met the third party costs if it was not obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act. As such, I believe that it would be entitled to recover those costs from...."

Wouldn't that apply for for all claims relating to a 3rd party in accidents?

No.

If you don't breach the T&C's then they pay out to the 3rd party and you are not pursued.

If you do breack the T&C's then they would like not to pay out, but the law compells them to do so. So they pay out to the 3rd party and recover the costs from you, which they are entitled to do because you broke the terms.

So I suppose the question would be what terms and conditions did they break in order for the insurer to pursue them? It can't be for breach of an exclusion for driving on the Nordschleife because then it would have been excluded from the insurance and therefore they were driving without insurance which is a whole different game.

confused.com? Know why now :-(

It's not "driving without insurance" it's driving with insurance which you've broken the terms of.

Same as if you modify your car and don't tell them. You "have insurance" and therefore your insurer is compelled to pay out to 3rd parties. The insurer then sues you for their loss. If you have no insurance, then there's no insurer to pay to the injured 3rd party, so the money comes out of that 'uninsured drivers' pot which all insurers pay into.

Hope that makes the difference between "no insurance" and "breaking the terms of insurance" clear.

[Fireblade69]

Yep, got you.

That's never going to have any grey areas in it is it?

Edited by Fireblade69 on Friday 18th June 12:14