Any legal eagles out there?
 

If your insurance documents do not specifically exclude track days then are you covered.
I have a little disagreement with mine, they believe that they are covered by the "no racing" clause.
I remember last year in MCN a guy won a case because the judge agreed that in law racing is a legal definition and track days are therefore legally not racing.

Regards
keith

Especially as most Track day companies go out of their way to emphasise that the day is NOT about racing!

Not sure i'd like the risk of taking that to court and relying on the mood of the judge that day. Especially as most of them are old farts with no concept of what happens in the real world. Nae offence like.

Also if you've phoned them and queried it and they have confirmed that you are not covered and recorded the conversation.....

Not 100% sure on this one but I think keith has a point...
Obviously depends on the wording of individual policys but it wouldn't be difficult to argue that a track day is the "pleasure" part of SDP. You're not racing, not testing, not pace making, you're just taking your bike off the public roads purely for pleasure.
If a test case can be presented such as the one mentioned in MCN then the judge would have a hard time turning down your claim. And having your insurance company tell you you're not covered for track days doesn't mean sqaut unless you agree to it - cos if it's not already in the contract then it would have to be agreed as a contractual amendment before it can be enforced.

But saying all that..... I wouldn't be too impressed with anyone making a claim after binning it on a track day because it just contributes to increased premiums. If you take your wheels on a track day there's a hugely increased chance of crashing, and that I feel should be the risk of the individual not the insurers and other policy holders.

i would argue that i am less likely to have a crash ( especially an expensive 3rd party crash) on a track than the roads. If my policy does not exclude it then i expect to be covered for it.
My broker and insurer have recorded the conversations i have had with them. They therefore have on record my view that they do not specifically exclude track days, works both ways. The fact that they think a phrase means one thing does not make it so. In law you have to be specific.

Anyway the point i was trying to make is that i know that there has been a test case, reported in MCN and does any one have any more details on it. There was a rush by insurers after to state "trackdays" as excluded.
Who has a specific exclusion on their policy?
Regards
keith

I think your best argument will be to dig up the details on the case cited in MCN. I remember it too.

You have to be careful as part of the contract between you and the insurer requires you to furnish " all relevant information " to the insurer about the use of the bike.
This is defined as any information which may have a bearing on the issuing or not of a policy to you.
The fact that you may consider the use of the bike on a track could be construed to be relevant to the premium quoted or indeed whether they offer you insurance at all.
I understand your argument about the lower third party aspect, but you are preaching to the converted here.
An easy counter argument to that statement is that we ride much harder on a track than the road and therefore are closer to the bike & riders limits therefore the risk of binning it and making a claim could be that much more likely.
When it comes down to it, insurance companies are bookies and they want the odds as long as possible in their favour.
You pays your money...........
Andy ;)

[Edited on 14-5-2004 by Rushjob]

Make your complaint to the Ombudsman first. That might resolve it quicker/cheaper.

At the moment its not a complaint, i have not had a cash at a trackday, however i believe i am covered if i do.

Rushjob: works both ways, if i don't feel that use at a track is a problem then its not a material fact that i need to disclose. If in law its no different to use on the road then also there is no problem and no failing if i don't specifically mention it.
I have gone out of my way to ask them for the full list of exclusions on the policy they issued to me ( and were happy to take my money for).
They have told me that the exclusions printed on the policy are the total list of said exclusions.
It still stands therefore that if Trackday use is legally not racing then i am in fact covered. I have asked them to demonstrate otherwise, told them what i might use my bike for and still they have a defective argument.

Don't want to put this to the test though! Would be nice to hear what others have on their policies.
keith

Just wonder then why some companies offer specific trackday insurance for road bikes?

Response from a mate who is a solictor working mainly with very large (re-insurance) contracts, and also a motorcyclist himself ... although he rides a Blackbird!

He says:

Hi Rockhopper
Well i would expect that its because some insurers are making an explicit statement that track days are not covered.( because they know, but will not admit to you or me unless pressed that they are on dodgy ground with the " its covered by the no racing" clause).
So far we have only heard from Antoyne's friend about whats on his policy, the secondary point to this debate was to try to discover what others have specifically on the policies.
Does no one care or know what they are covered for?

mine is not specifically mentioned, but had the same answer. The way to test this is do a track day and crash, then let us know how you get on;). I think you may win but as said earlier, it is down to test cases.

Also, I think it is part of your obligatory duty to advise anything which is not 'normal' for your ins policiy - otherwise it may be void or subject to lower claim payment. Track days are not normal - I have been riding for a fair few years and recently did my first.

In an ideal world, it would be like communting - you either include or exclude and your premium reflects this choice. That way I dont have to pay for you to be covered.

We have already been over this "duty" thing, Track days are NOT abnormal for a bike rider.Certainly not in law. There has been a test case and the guy won. The insurance companies are hiding behind ignorance.
You miss the point when you say you don't want to pay on your policy to cover my track days. YOU ALREADY ARE!
I may take exception to you commuting in London or riding in the rain for example. Its a daft argument

As Keith says, the contract is there to stipulate what can and canoot be done. The use of the word "racing" has a legal definition, which is then expanded in the contract by the use of words like "timed events" to cover things like drag racing. Also check the "pizza delivery" clause that's in there too!

A contract works both ways - unless it explicitly states in the contract not to, then you can do it. That's the way laws work.

Thanks Antonye, i think we are getting through.
Seems no body knows or cares what their policy covers them for though.
I had hoped someone would know who the test case winner in MCN was. as he has done the hard expensive work already. I am going to talk to MCN myself.
I hope none of us have to find out on a track day for real. But if the worst happens don't let the insurance company stop you from getting the money you are almost ceratinly entitled to.
Alternatively lob the thing from a moving Transit van on a suitable quiet country road and see if they can tell the difference.

Many a true thing said in jest...

I know of a guy that rolled his Subaru Impreza limited edition Catalunya model on a trackday at Castle Coombe. It was a right old mess - crushed the roof in and everything.

He got it towed to the road outside the circuit and called the AA...

:o

I contacted my company before I did a roadskills day at Cadwell. No problems once the people running the trackday had faxed me a paper explaing the facts of the day, instruction, not racing etc. The day did include some elements not included in a normal trackday but if when we where using the circuit, it was as fast as you could go and the instructor was there to help you hang off and go faster.

This day earn't me a furher 5% discount off the insurance too.

Might be a way forward, contact the organisers in advance and see if they have a standard doc that you can fax on to your company to explain the facts. Difficult for them to back out of a claim too.

Rgds,

Rob

I dont have fully comp on my bike so to be honest i look for the cheapest quote and go for that!

I have no idea what it actually covers me for but if it wasnt a legal requirement to have insurance then i dont think i would bother.

Hi Antonye
I was not joking!

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??