Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 72 of 72

Thread: Serious insurance issue for the Nurburgring

  1. #61
    Guest fullmetalgasket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,220
    Rides
    0
    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..

  2. #62
    Guest
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    196
    Rides
    0
    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

  3. #63
    Guest 200sxct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Warrington
    Posts
    611
    Rides
    0
    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

  4. #64
    Guest Asht_200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ashflix.com
    Posts
    22,542
    Rides
    0
    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.

  5. #65
    Guest Clouder_sx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    16,419
    Rides
    0
    So does 'third party' cover the Nordschliefe itself? ie, the armco bill?

  6. #66
    Now just a man!
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    North West Kent
    Posts
    17,378
    Rides
    1
    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!

  7. #67
    Guest Ican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,064
    Rides
    0
    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.

    Insurer: 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.
    http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurb...nsurance2.html

  8. #68
    Guest Clouder_sx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cornwall
    Posts
    16,419
    Rides
    0
    So they will pay third party, then claim it back off you.

    So, they won't pay third party, ultimately

  9. #69
    Head SXOC Security and small penis department TheBigShow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Duston, Northamptonshire
    Posts
    11,171
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Clouder_sx View Post
    So they will pay third party, then claim it back off you.

    So, they won't pay third party, ultimately
    Basically yeah. But it will allow you to leave the country and not be arrested.

  10. #70
    Guest Ican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,064
    Rides
    0
    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

    (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.
    Well at least they will have to pay out if you are hurt on the Ring regardless of fault.

    (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.
    (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.
    http://www.confused.com/news-views/b...e-been-revoked
    It would seem that insurers are in direct violation off the law as it is now.

    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.
    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?

    (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
    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
    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.

  11. #71
    Guest sparkyhx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    4,731
    Rides
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Evilchap View Post
    Interesting reading...

    http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurb...insurance.html

    But is it factual?
    only mentions the Insurer must pay out, the implication being they will chase the car owner - which is my understanding

  12. #72
    Home Counties Rep LED sandwich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Harpenden
    Posts
    6,754
    Rides
    0
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigShow View Post
    Reach arounds are more my thing, I don't like the taste...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •