Drifting might (Although I doubt it) be insured - but if you're caught doing it and crash the German Police will throw the book at you
Infact, they're likely to charge you either way if they see you do it..
Drifting might (Although I doubt it) be insured - but if you're caught doing it and crash the German Police will throw the book at you
Infact, they're likely to charge you either way if they see you do it..
It was sarcastic mate. They only exclude speed oriented races. As drifting is not a speed orientated sport they shouldn't be excluding it.
But i am sure as hell not going to find out the hard way. If i am going to a drift session i might get it in writing that they are covering it
If the hire cars are covered for third party damage/injury then surely they must be using some insureance comapany to cover the tourist days.
If your not taking the S14 to the ring Bren, I will look after it for the weekend I need to convince the wife that a V8 is a good idea.
Its a good Job my bike only sold yesterday and not last weekend, as I may have bought a salvage monaro middle of last week with an extra couple of grand burning a whole in my pocket. :S
http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurb...insurance.html
Bumping this thread as considering a ring trick.
Read the link - regardless of what your insurance company states, they have to cover you for 3rd party
In 2010, the UK Insurance Ombudsman made a final decision regarding a case concerning the Nurburgring Nordschleife. He found that the Nordschleife is a circuit with all the characteristics of a 'prepared course'. The insured's policy excluded use on a 'prepared course' which was held to be neither unfair or unreasonable given the increased risks associated with driving in such places. The insurer agreed to meet any third party liabilities but this did not mean that the driver was driving within the terms and conditions of his policy. The Ombudsman said that UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of third party only cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own-damage cover. The German High Court has ruled that an insurer cannot escape third party liability during Touristenfahrten at Hockenheim. The same principle applies to the Nordschliefe.
So does 'third party' cover the Nordschliefe itself? ie, the armco bill?
This again, yes they are required to cover you just bear in mind they have the right to recover their costs from you.
It's not worth it, they will come back to you for their money.
Now just a man!
Unless there has been a recent ruling otherwise they unfortunately have the right of recovery, so yes they will pay the claim and then come after you to refund them after.
http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurb...nsurance2.htmlInsurer: Liverpool Victoria
Definitions: Track Days. driving or use on a motor racing track, circuit, airfield, test venue, derestricted road or at an off road event.
Exclusions: page 17. Hire or reward, racing, pace making, testing, speed trials, track days or for competing in National British A or International rallies or for any use in connection with the Motor Trade.
Right of recovery: If under the law of any country we must make a payment which we would not otherwise have to make, you must repay that amount to us.
Comment: A badly drafted policy but the exclusion is there. They define driving on a derestricted road as a 'Track Day' and exclude track days. Many German autobahns are detrestricted roads and clearly that is not a track day. On balance, Nurburgring is probably exlcuded but Liverpool Victoria must by law cover a third party claim. However, be prepared to repay this.
So they will pay third party, then claim it back off you.
So, they won't pay third party, ultimately
The truth is if you haven't got a bucket to piss in they probably won't go through the expense of taking you to court however if you large assets such as house you most probably will be waving goodbye to them.
I believe that there is yet to be a decision regarding this at the European courts where the premise of which is whether the statutory law of minimum cover can be restricted by contract as is now or whether it is inclusive cover for all party's not just the third party only.
So the question is does this European law afford mandatory minimum cover to the insured of all liability irrespective of clauses or does it only guarantee cover to third party's? I hope the decision will fall in favour of the side of the driver and policy holder, as I believe that it is unreasonable to expose people to such large liability's through complicated terminology and obscure caveats in circumstance's that they happen to be using there vehicles within the law of a given country.
Many years ago I was astonished when I happened upon a clause in my insurance that restricted insurance around the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, which I had driven around a few months before and so had not been fully aware of the implications. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that one would be restricted from driving on a public road in Paris or on any road for that matter where the law mandates compulsory insurance.
The European act makes for interesting reading. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...11:0031:EN:PDF
Well at least they will have to pay out if you are hurt on the Ring regardless of fault.(21) The members of the family of the policyholder, driver or
any other person liable should be afforded protection
comparable to that of other third parties, in any event
in respect of their personal injuries.
(25) Some insurance undertakings insert into insurance
policies clauses to the effect that the contract will be
cancelled if the vehicle remains outside the Member
State of registration for longer than a specified period.
This practice is in conflict with the principle set out in
this Directive, according to which compulsory motor
insurance should cover, on the basis of a single
premium, the entire territory of the Community. It
should therefore be specified that the insurance cover is
to remain valid during the whole term of the contract,
irrespective of whether the vehicle remains in another
Member State for a particular period, without prejudice
to the obligations under Member States’ national legis*
lation with respect to the registration of vehicles.http://www.confused.com/news-views/b...e-been-revoked(23) The inclusion within the insurance cover of any
passenger in the vehicle is a major achievement of the
existing legislation. This objective would be placed in
jeopardy if national legislation or any contractual clause
contained in an insurance policy excluded passengers
from insurance cover because they knew or should
have known that the driver of the vehicle was under
the influence of alcohol or of any other intoxicating
agent at the time of the accident. The passenger is not
usually in a position to assess properly the level of
intoxication of the driver. The objective of discouraging
persons from driving while under the influence of intoxi*
cating agents is not achieved by reducing the insurance
cover for passengers who are victims of motor vehicle
accidents. Cover of such passengers under the vehicle’s
compulsory motor insurance does not prejudge any
liability they might incur pursuant to the applicable
national legislation, nor the level of any award of
damages in a specific accident.
It would seem that insurers are in direct violation off the law as it is now.
The purpose of the act is to make insurance similar in respect liability and cover across the European union and to insure that it does not impact on the free movements of people and trade. So if you can not drive the Ring denying you free movement and that in addition denies the Nurburging free trade afforded to it under the EU would it not therefore make the insurance company's position untenable?Insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
motor vehicles (motor insurance) is of special importance
for European citizens, whether they are policyholders or
victims of an accident. It is also a major concern for
insurance undertakings as it constitutes an important
part of non-life insurance business in the Community.
Motor insurance also has an impact on the free
movement of persons and vehicles. It should therefore
be a key objective of Community action in the field of
financial services to reinforce and consolidate the internal
market in motor insurance.
This would suggest to mean to me that in respect to " In the interests of the party insured" the insured driver is covered without detriment "the cover required by its law or the cover(26) In the interests of the party insured, every insurance
policy should guarantee for a single premium, in each
Member State, the cover required by its law or the cover
required by the law of the Member State where the
vehicle is normally based, when that cover is higher.
Article 14
Single premium
Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all
compulsory policies of insurance against civil liability arising
out of the use of vehicles:
(a) cover, on the basis of a single premium and during the
whole term of the contract, the entire territory of the
Community, including for any period in which the vehicle
remains in other Member States during the term of the
contract; and
(b) guarantee, on the basis of that single premium, in each
Member State, the cover required by its law or the cover
required by the law of the Member State where the vehicle
is normally based when that cover is higher
required by the law of the Member State where the vehicle is normally based, when that cover is higher" to liability via any clause in contract when it is in contradiction to the same cover given to a driver afforded by German law in this case in regard to the Ring. This practice seems to be in conflict with the principle set out in Directive which would mean that you are insured against liability on the Ring but good luck trying to convince your insurance company of it though.
At the end of the day it's the insurance underwriters and their actuaries that calculate risks and remove liability's from policy's so as to make them as profitable as possible, and so to this end they have chosen to conveniently interpret this law to there best advantage. However if they had not I would fail to see how it would really impact the cost any more than marginally, so in my opinion the greater good for all would be not to limit such cover by them embracing the reasonably interpretation and spirit of this law and so make it fairer for all.
If people are still looking this place claims to cover the ring for MLR members,
http://www.paceward.com/insurance/mo...egister-policy
though this is on mlr track days so im not sure if there closed circuit or not.