Newbie request for legal assistance on insurance claim

[muso]

Hi all,

I'm new here although a veteran of some other forums. I have recently had an insurance claim refused due to "being on a racetrack and therefore outside the terms of my cover". I have been completely open and honest with my insurers who know it happened on the Nurburgring. There are enough personal interpretations and grey areas in their decision to lead me to believe it will be worth appealing this decision.

My downside is that I am not a lawyer/solicitor so need some help. Can anyone recommend anyone?

Thanks in advance
Ade

[timsta]

I was under the impression that Nurburgring a toll road and was open to the public. I'm sure I've seen footage of local busses and the like using it.

Edited by timsta on Saturday 4th November 15:17

[FortJefferson]

The Nurburgring is not a race track, it is classed as a de-restricted, one way, toll road. Unless you're policy exclude's these, you are covered and should be able to claim. read your policy and take legal advice.

[leosayer]

Been through the same issue myself. If your insurance policy doesn't exclude the ring specifically, or indirectly then you are covered.

Go to the Insurance Ombudsman if you feel they are not paying out when they should.

[BigBob]

Must admit that I thought I'd heard/read on forums in the past that Nurburgring was specifically mentioned in the T&C's of some policies as being not covered.

Think it may be a case of applying the magnifying glass to the small print.

[muso]

Happily, the small print doesn't exclude the Ring or derestricted toll roads. The decision has been based on the fact that, as the Ring is used for racing at times, my insurers have decided that it is a racetrack and therfore my policy excludes the Ring under the "not to be used on a racetrack" clause. This is an interpretation rather than an absolute hence my choice to appeal the decision. Hopefully I'll be able to make some headway.

[monkeyhanger]

muso said:

The decision has been based on the fact that, as the Ring is used for racing at times, my insurers have decided that it is a racetrack and therfore my policy excludes the Ring under the "not to be used on a racetrack" clause. This is an interpretation rather than an absolute hence my choice to appeal the decision. Hopefully I'll be able to make some headway.

You could try asking if that prevent you taking a holiday in the Isle Of Man, as public roads there are also occasionally used for racing...

[g_attrill]

monkeyhanger said:

muso said:

The decision has been based on the fact that, as the Ring is used for racing at times, my insurers have decided that it is a racetrack and therfore my policy excludes the Ring under the "not to be used on a racetrack" clause. This is an interpretation rather than an absolute hence my choice to appeal the decision. Hopefully I'll be able to make some headway.

You could try asking if that prevent you taking a holiday in the Isle Of Man, as public roads there are also occasionally used for racing...

Or Monaco, or any of the UK public roads used for rallying...

[muso]

All valid points. I did ask about other places on the phone but got no satisfactory answer. I am hoping to receive more clarification on the decision in writing this week based on a conversation I had on Friday. Then I'll be able to start moving.

I've been recommended to contact Nick Freeman who does a lot of motoring law stuff. Has anyone here got any experience of dealing with Nick?

[mattyboy101]

Some policies exclude 'speed trials' or words to that effect - you could class the ring as that

[cooperman]

The legal wording is normally that the policy excludes use for 'Racing, pacemaking, speed testing and rallying'. Clearly they believe (rightly?) that you were testing the performance of your car, and/or your own driving ability at speed, on an internationally famous piece of road

[mechsympathy]

muso said:

I've been recommended to contact Nick Freeman who does a lot of motoring law stuff. Has anyone here got any experience of dealing with Nick?

That's an expensive way forward. Have a word with "Anniesdad" on here, he runs a dealing-with-insurance-type firm.

[justinp1]

cooperman said:

The legal wording is normally that the policy excludes use for 'Racing, pacemaking, speed testing and rallying'. Clearly they believe (rightly?) that you were testing the performance of your car, and/or your own driving ability at speed, on an internationally famous piece of road

Perhaps he was driving around as it is a famous international landmark and ex-F1 track?

Any assumption that he was speed-testing, can only be exactly that?

What is the legal difference between the OP driving round the toll road at Nurburgring or through the road section at Le Mans, or Monaco?

If the OP says he wasnt, how can they prove otherwise?

[mattyboy101]

The extent of the damage, reports of the incident?

[cooperman]

justinp1 said:

cooperman said:

The legal wording is normally that the policy excludes use for 'Racing, pacemaking, speed testing and rallying'. Clearly they believe (rightly?) that you were testing the performance of your car, and/or your own driving ability at speed, on an internationally famous piece of road

Perhaps he was driving around as it is a famous international landmark and ex-F1 track?

Any assumption that he was speed-testing, can only be exactly that?

What is the legal difference between the OP driving round the toll road at Nurburgring or through the road section at Le Mans, or Monaco?

If the OP says he wasnt, how can they prove otherwise?

One might consider that their thinking went something like:
"He's driving a high-performance car (?) on an internationally famous race track to which many go to try their hand at high speed and against the clock (remember Clarkson in the Jag Diesel?) and he seems to have crashed. He was probably speed testing contrary to the terms of his contract with us. Let's go that route unless he can show otherwise".
The question is, then, was the OP just 'touring gently round', or was he 'having a real go' (as I would in the circumstances and did the last time I drove there on the Pirelli Classic Marathon a few years ago).
I think the OP will struggle with this if the Ins. Co. dig their heels in. What was the accident scenario and how much damage?

[muso]

Hmm, interesting. The insurers have not accused me of speed testing, which I was definitely not. Their decision is based on the road being a track. They have made no mention of my activities at all, they are merely thinking of location.

Thanks for the contact tip of Anniesdad.

Forgive my ignorance but what is OP?

[trax]

Its the policy wording thats the key. If its classed as a toll road, then its not a race track.

Dont know why you are thinking of going down solicitors route. Make a complaint about the result to your insurance firm, they will look into and say either OK we will pay out, or not. (Dont know if youve done that yet). Then go to the FOS (ombudsman), and they will investigate, and come to a decision on whether they should pay or not, and the FOS usually find in favour of claiments, unless its a starightforward reason why you carnt claim. The insurance company have to do what the FOS say.

[mattyboy101]

Original Poster

[muso]

Trax,

Do you have experience of the complaints route? I'm not the dullest spoon in the drawer (or the brightest) but I've not done this before.

[muso]

Some more developments today...

I have received a letter from my insurers saying that they are researching the answers to my questions and checking things out with the Nurburgring folks. Is this progress? I guess it could be any of:

1. They are checking the legal status of the Ring
2. They are checking if there are really two entry/exit points as I told them on the phone (it's not just a loop after all)

What might they do next? I suppose they might apologise and pay my claim. Or will they write with different things to what they said on the phone. If they're different and worse for me, can I argue this without written proof of what they said on the phone? If they change their minds, would this be better for me if it goes to the ombudsman?