Insurance wording

[Austin Prefect]

My new insurance certificate (Aviva) includes the following wording under exclusions:

"Use for any competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed, including off-road events and track days, whether between motor vehicles or otherwise, and irrespective of whether this takes place on any circuit or track, formed or otherwise, and regardless of any statutory authorisation of any such event"
(My italics)


Not sure whether to read this as 'off-road events and track days are included in the category of competition, trial ETC.'
Or as
'competition, trial ETC are excluded [i[even if[/i] they are an off-road event or track day'

I'd expect them to exclude off road events and track days obviously, and if it's the second interpretation the 'irrespective' clause seems like a duplication. But taken literally it does read like the second interpretation.

If I was planning some specific non competitive off road event with no race or trial of speed, but which took place on a track. Like the events ROSPA used to do at Millbrook. Then I'd ring and ask. But in general terms I'm not sure how to interpret it.

Interestingly that wording would not appear to exclude the Nurburg bypass on tourist days on either interpretation, but I dare say there is some other wording lurking in the documents to exclude it.

[dundarach]

It reads to me as:

Any event, official or not, anywhere, isn't covered

Edited to add

Anything other than driving in accordance with the law, on a public road, is not covered

I wonder about a 4x4 on a publicly available road, unpaved and rough with people watching you carefully drive to meet other 4x4's who have also driven legally down this 'road'?

Edited by dundarach on Tuesday 24th June 10:15

[paul_c123]

I think its a CYA wording. For example if you were on a track day and hit another car on an entry slip onto the track, or the paddock area. You might try and argue its neither "off road" nor "track" (because its a paved road surface, and its not part of the actual track)

[paul_c123]

dundarach said:

It reads to me as:

Any event, official or not, anywhere, isn't covered

Edited to add

Anything other than driving in accordance with the law, on a public road, is not covered

I wonder about a 4x4 on a publicly available road, unpaved and rough with people watching you carefully drive to meet other 4x4's who have also driven legally down this 'road'?

Edited by dundarach on Tuesday 24th June 10:15

A "road" doesn't need to be paved to count as a road. In the off roading world, there are so called "green lanes" but behind that there is a legal definition. For example many are BOATs or RUPPs. BOAT - Byway open to all traffic. RUPP - Road used as a public path. And there's 'green lanes' where the legal status is disputed, or its NOT a public road. If it is a legal road, the insurance would cover it (its not technically off road, its just not paved - normally there is some kind of surface preparation such as gravel, hardcore, cleared vegetation etc but often they are in considerable disrepair and are just muddy ruts).

[Austin Prefect]

paul_c123 said:

I think its a CYA wording. For example if you were on a track day and hit another car on an entry slip onto the track, or the paddock area. You might try and argue its neither "off road" nor "track" (because its a paved road surface, and its not part of the actual track)

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

[paul_c123]

Austin Prefect said:

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

Yes. It says so in the exclusions, that track days are included in the exclusion.

Edited by paul_c123 on Tuesday 24th June 11:05

[Austin Prefect]

paul_c123 said:

Austin Prefect said:

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

Yes. It says so in the exclusions, that track days are included in the exclusion.

Edited by paul_c123 on Tuesday 24th June 11:05

Strictly speaking it doesn't
"any competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed, including off-road events and track days"

It excludes competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed.

It can certainly be interpreted as meaning 'off-road events and track days are deemed to be competition ETC, it could also be read as 'competitions ETC even as an off-road event or track day' are excluded.

If It wasn't obvious that insurance companies tend to exclude track days it wouldn't occur to me that a non competitive track event would be meant to be caught by that wording.

If a club prohibits all 'children including offspring of members' I wouldn't take that as meaning adult offspring were prohibited.

[BlackTails]

Austin Prefect said:

My new insurance certificate (Aviva) includes the following wording under exclusions:

"Use for any competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed, including off-road events and track days, whether between motor vehicles or otherwise, and irrespective of whether this takes place on any circuit or track, formed or otherwise, and regardless of any statutory authorisation of any such event"
(My italics)


Not sure whether to read this as 'off-road events and track days are included in the category of competition, trial ETC.'
Or as
'competition, trial ETC are excluded [i[even if[/i] they are an off-road event or track day'

I'd expect them to exclude off road events and track days obviously, and if it's the second interpretation the 'irrespective' clause seems like a duplication. But taken literally it does read like the second interpretation.

If I was planning some specific non competitive off road event with no race or trial of speed, but which took place on a track. Like the events ROSPA used to do at Millbrook. Then I'd ring and ask. But in general terms I'm not sure how to interpret it.

Interestingly that wording would not appear to exclude the Nurburg bypass on tourist days on either interpretation, but I dare say there is some other wording lurking in the documents to exclude it.

The former, I think.

The exclusion is Use for any competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed .

The next section (including to irrespective) basically says everything in that section will be taken by the insurer - and so also be taken by the insured - to fall within the exclusion. Though I think it was need to be of the same character as the exclusion - eg driving over a field to avoid a road closure is on any view off road, but it’s not something that is, or is anything like, a competition etc.

The next section (irrespective to regardless) is a way of saying that the parties agree that the features in that section are irrelevant ie don’t allow the insured to negate the exclusion and claim they are covered. The final section (regardless to the end) is to the same effect.

Austin Prefect said:

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

Ok - so you re on the public highway passing the Top Gear track site, see the gate open and no one around so drive in for a potter about. Then you manage to crash or crash into something else.

I agree with you that the insurer would say the loss is excluded. The route to doing so isn t clear though.

It may be that they d exclude liability if you rolled it through a mixture of over ambition and lack of talent ( watch this ) but not if you drove into a wall parking. They may say that if you re driving on a track then necessarily you are engaged in a trial - a test of you or the car or both.

So to a degree it may depend but I wouldn t fancy your chances if you were on the track when the incident occurred. And at that point the insurer withholds payment and you have to take some action to get them to shift position.

Edited by BlackTails on Tuesday 24th June 18:40

[Durzel]

Austin Prefect said:

paul_c123 said:

Austin Prefect said:

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

Yes. It says so in the exclusions, that track days are included in the exclusion.

Edited by paul_c123 on Tuesday 24th June 11:05

Strictly speaking it doesn't
"any competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed, including off-road events and track days"

It excludes competition, trial, performance test, race or trial of speed.

It can certainly be interpreted as meaning 'off-road events and track days are deemed to be competition ETC, it could also be read as 'competitions ETC even as an off-road event or track day' are excluded.

If It wasn't obvious that insurance companies tend to exclude track days it wouldn't occur to me that a non competitive track event would be meant to be caught by that wording.

If a club prohibits all 'children including offspring of members' I wouldn't take that as meaning adult offspring were prohibited.

What is the ordinary meaning?

What do people take their cars on to tracks to do? It's not to just bimble around. There will at some point be a decision to go fast - ergo "performance test".

The ordinary and plain meaning of that exclusion is that your car isn't covered on track days, whether you think you're being competitive or not.

[VSKeith]

paul_c123 said:

Austin Prefect said:

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

Yes. It says so in the exclusions, that track days are included in the exclusion.

Edited by paul_c123 on Tuesday 24th June 11:05

^This. It's including things in the list of exclusions

[Richard-390a0]

I mean you could just ask the insurer themselves to clarify?

[E-bmw]

The simple answer is go on a track day & have a crash, then try to claim & let us know the answer.

You 100% KNOW they are excluded, why try to deliberately mis-interpret something you already know?

[2020vision]

The exclusion 'includes' off-road events....

[BlackTails]

2020vision said:

The exclusion 'includes' off-road events....

It does, but I don t think that is an especially clear term here (unless it is defined elsewhere).

In off-road , what does road mean? The public highway, public and private roads - road in the sense of something going from A to B, or any tarmaced surface including a circuit?

Is “off-road” anything not on a road or does it have a different and narrower meaning?

And what does event mean? It suggests an organised multi-participant thing. It can t - I suspect - mean simply the event of departing from a road (eg driving into that hedge was an event) because that adds nothing to off road .

Typically insurance policies tend more to plain English than legal formality. But precision is key in both.

Edited by BlackTails on Tuesday 24th June 16:52

[Austin Prefect]

Durzel said:

What is the ordinary meaning?

What do people take their cars on to tracks to do? It's not to just bimble around. There will at some point be a decision to go fast - ergo "performance test".

The ordinary and plain meaning of that exclusion is that your car isn't covered on track days, whether you think you're being competitive or not.

Probably irrelevant to the issue, but it's perfectly possible to drive round a track without testing performance. ROSPA used to do days at Millbrook stressing that it wasn't a performance test and that insurance companies would normally be OK with it if you asked them.

A decision to go 'fast;' whatever that means, isn't a performance test, anymore than driving on a public road when late for work is a performance test.

It isn't the ordinary and plain meaning that off-road and track days are excluded. That's my point. For some reason it doesn't just say exclusions are competition, speed trials, (...), off-road and track days. For some reason it's worded exactly as if non competitive off road events not involving speed trials aren't excluded.

Edited by Austin Prefect on Tuesday 24th June 17:42

[Austin Prefect]

Richard-390a0 said:

I mean you could just ask the insurer themselves to clarify?

Then they would ask exactly what specific event I was participating in and clarify for that alone. and I've no intention of participating in any event. My issue is that the general rule is bizarrely worded.

[sospan]

I've done parade laps , last one at Silverstone Classic. Basically driving round in a stream of cars, limited speed ( including no hanging back to leave room to accelerate), no overtaking. At the time it was cleared as ok by my insurer ( a specialist for my make of car). I also had track day cover by pre informing them but non competitive, timed atc. Did a couple, last one at RAF Lyneham on a "track" marked by cones on the airfield. It was an open day. Insurer was pre informed so ok.

[donkmeister]

Austin Prefect said:

But suppose I where to argue that I was simply driving around the track out of curiosity and was not competing or in any speed trial. Could they argue that as off road and/or a track day it was still an excluded activity?

I'm sure they would, but I don't see it in the wording.

If you mean "driving round an empty track, because it's not an event day" well... Good luck finding something to crash into.

I think you are trying to find uncertainty where none exists

[Austin Prefect]

donkmeister said:

If you mean "driving round an empty track, because it's not an event day" well... Good luck finding something to crash into.

I think you are trying to find uncertainty where none exists

OK look at this way.

Suppose they worded the exclusion
"Use for any competition, trial, performance test, race, trial of speed, off-road events or track day."

What difference would it make other than making it clearer? Why on earth are they introducing uncertainty?

[paul_c123]

Questions for your insurer, I think. I'm out of ideas.