Just copied this from MCN
Happened longer ago than i remembered but its STILL valid.


Road policy pays out for track day crash

A RIDER who crashed on a track day has won a two-year battle to force his insurance company to pay his accident claim.

25 Oct 1999
MCN Reporter





Industry watchdogs ordered the unnamed insurers to settle after refusing to accept that the terms of the policy, which included a standard ?no racing? clause, excluded simply riding on a track.

The ruling is certain to trigger similar claims and challenges the long-held notion that normal policies for road bikes won?t cover riding on a circuit. And, according to the Association of British Insurers, there is ?little danger? of insurance companies rewording policies to exclude track days in the light of the ruling.

A spokesman said: ?There may be a small risk of increased premiums for riders who regularly attend track days, but to rewrite policies would be to go against the spirit of the whole ruling.?

Few details have been revealed about the landmark case, other than that the rider crashed his Aprilia RS250 at 60mph during an event at Donington Park in 1997. His insurers refused to accept liability, citing an ?exclusion for racing? clause in most policies which covers racing or pace-making, any trial or speed contest, competition or rally.

But the industry?s ombudsman ? the ultimate authority on insurance matters ? ruled that taking part in a track day could not be considered a form of racing as it didn?t involve any of the activities listed.

Spokeswoman Reidy Flynn said: ?For years people have assumed they weren?t covered for track days, but it is now clear that?s not the case. The argument that any use of a bike on a track is a form of racing cannot be accepted.?


The rider?s complaint was upheld thanks to evidence from the track day?s organiser, Track Attack, which proved riders were supervised at all times and even recorded on a network of CCTV cameras. They confirmed riders were neither timed nor awarded any finishing positions and were actually encouraged to ride within the limits of their own ability.

The ombudsman concluded that the crash ?could just as easily have happened on the public highway?. The decision has just been revealed and news of it is still filtering through the insurance industry.

wonder what the outcome would have been if proved to be doing 90? WOuld it make a difference? If it does, would your policy be invalid on the same grounds if over the speed limit?

To come back on an earlier comment KM - I think people do 'get it' we are not all ingorant, uneducated fools;);) we just have different opinions on whats 'right'...'where theres blame, theres a claim'

Hi Bradders
I accept that an insurance company might try to wriggle out of a claim on any detail it thinks it can get away with. However, what speed limit would you be breaking on a circuit ?
I presume that most people don't care that they are already paying for cover that they will then let their insurers get away without paying for.
Prior to this thread how many people would have made a claim after a track day accident. How many will try it now.
Lets hope any one who is out of pocket gets what they are due, and is not made to feel guilty about it either.

Keith,

Nice research mate! I totally agree that the wording of the average insurance policy entitles you to claim for trackday incidents, but I still disagree that we're already paying for that aspect of the policy...
Just because there's a loophole which allows the claim, this doesn't mean the underwriters have factored in the additional risk (if any) of track riding when working out the premium.

But who knows... maybe they do allow these claims but just try to wriggle out of paying! Where's the conspiricy theorists among us!!!

nb

Ok, here is a theory -

Number of claims increase as people try to claim after having a track day spill.
Insurance companies don't want to pay out, but are forced to due to the loophole.
Who suffers at the end of the day? The insurance company?, i don't think so.
Premiums increase across the board for all bike riders.

So, who is suffering?

This is just a theory, i never claimed it was a good one....

[Edited on 25-5-2004 by MarkyMark76]

Whats your point ?
Do you expect me to not make a claim ( for something i am covered for) so that you can have a lower premium.
Would you please not commute or ride in built up area's or ride in the rain.
The argument assumes that #1 track riding mile for mile is more dangerous than on the road. Not proved.
#2 That statistically your premium is not already loaded based on events. Especially since the MCN article is 4 years old.
#3 That this theoretical rise in premiums would be more than the approximatley £130 per event insurance that you can arrange now. Thats half my total premium for all risks for a year.

I think the arguement assumes...
#1, track riding is not already factored into the premium, and is additional to the road miles you do therefore a higher overall risk regardless of how safe it is relative to road miles,
#2, Insurance premiums are loaded according to historic claim costs, therefor if insurers have previously not paid out for it then they wouldn't have had any cost to add to your premium as a result,
#3, £130 per event "trackday insurance" policies sell far less than road policies, so you've also got to consider profit margins divided by number of policies sold.... therefore the two prices cannot be directly compared.

Thanks, that is indeed what is assumed. Just our of curiosity, how many people who went to Cadwell recently forked out for the day policy for a road bike?



[Edited on 25-5-2004 by MarkyMark76]

#1 it will be more risky the more you do. The point of a track is to take you and the vehcile to the limits as 'safely' as possible. The more you do, the more you push, until you find them. Start a poll of this on the board is the best way i think to at least have a stab at any factaul evidence
#2 it will be loaded for risk based on occurances in the last XX years, if there have been minimal (if any) track day claims then it wont be loaded
#3 - just because your premium is low doesnt mean most are. Look at what has happened in the US, and soon here, due to blame culture. Who do you think pays?? Also, you will help to push up the TPO and TPFT premiums too, as they do use similar risks basis for costings.

On another note - does you health cover/life insurance cover you??

I hope they close the loophole.

Seems that the poll hasnyt got loads of repies but, if its good enough for the government to use minimal data, its good enough for me;)

So far - just under 50% have had a 'mishap'...what would this do the premiums??