Insurance exclusion now in NC

BretLuter · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:18 am

Donnie Barnes wrote:

steve remchak wrote:

5) If you can't afford to walk away from your track car................

Breathe out ya'll................. collectively we know this isn't ideal but it ain't the end of the world.

Okay, if nobody else will, I'll do it...why you gotta be a putz?

This *is* a big change. There have been folks we know who have lost cars at DE type events and had them covered. It's been generally known that this was something you could get done here, so I think there were a good many folks doing DEs in cars that, while they might be able to afford to walk away from it, didn't want that risk.

Now the situation has changed and it's very good to know about it. Cline let us know. Some people are throwing up their hands, and it's because they now have to make a major re-evaluation of what they do. Just because YOU aren't one of them doesn't mean it's not a big deal. Jeez.

Thanks, Cline.

--Donnie

Oh Donnie, I think we all know that Steve is a Putz.

But really, I didn't take his post in that way- I think he's just pointing out that alot of people simply don't think about bad stuff happening at the track- and they definitely don't think it will happen to them, and if, by some miracle, it does happen to them, they believe someone (i.e.- insurance) will be there to take care of them and fix their expensive-ass car.

If it's that much of a concern to you that you can't afford/stomach walking away from your car, then you need to either stick to something where it's less likely for this to happen, or YOU need to make sure that YOU have some sort of protection/insurance that will help lessen the blow if something does happen.

(** above not directed at Donnie, just general comments about the issue at hand**)

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:23 am

I think this overall conversation has much more to do with liability and far less to do with balling up a car that you proactively chose to participate in a motorsports activity in, whether it be a $3k lemons car (including cage, safety etc), a $12k Ecobox, or a $30k sports car. Ultimately liability could cost multiple millions of dollars so the wadded up car is near immaterial.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:27 am

Ryan Holton wrote:

Lost that battle 10+ years ago in an accident where a girl pulled out in front of me. I was supposedly late to work and in a hurry (never mind I was a salaried employee). That was my 1% contribution.

I guess that is still better than a no-fault state.

OK...so you were the "victim" in this scenario, right? without prying too deeply does that mean because you were "responsible" for 1% of the incident, you only re-couped 50% of damages?

So by extension if you willingly and voluntarily jump onto a racecourse knowing a car is coming, and are subsequently struck, you the pedestrian may be deemed negligent to some degree as apportioned by the court/jury. Or, if your unsupervised child runs in the way of a car driving through paddock at 5mph the parents will bear some degree of negligence as well? In both cases the driver is not wholly at fault then, correct?

(I know...no one's a lawyer, this isn't legal advice etc etc. Just want to get a basic understanding of the situation.)

Aaron Buckley · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:41 am

Steven Carter wrote:

OK...so you were the "victim" in this scenario, right? without prying too deeply does that mean because you were "responsible" for 1% of the incident, you only re-couped 50% of damages?

So by extension if you willingly and voluntarily jump onto a racecourse knowing a car is coming, and are subsequently struck, you the pedestrian may be deemed negligent to some degree as apportioned by the court/jury. Or, if your unsupervised child runs in the way of a car driving through paddock at 5mph the parents will bear some degree of negligence as well? In both cases the driver is not wholly at fault then, correct?

(I know...no one's a lawyer, this isn't legal advice etc etc. Just want to get a basic understanding of the situation.)

In Ryan's case, if the deal was more than fixing a couple of beat up cars, say the person had knee damage that required multiple surgeries, it's likely would have gone to the attorneys and either a settlement happens, binding arbitration occurs, or it will go to trial. This is a jury trial and if you get a sympathetic jury (especially in the case of a unsupervised child), expect that you are in a lot of trouble. In Ryan's case with a person that is 99% at fault, a jury would likely tell them to pound sand on the claim. It all depends upon the evidence and how the attorney presents their case.

Please note, most of these cases don't go to trial until 2-3 years after the incident occurred. Thus, the pictures, descriptions, depositions and all the follow up activity by the insurance company are all that you have in the form of evidence (aside from personal testimony that you gave within a month or less of the accident). If you do give a statement after such an incident, be aware that it becomes an official document and will be used in trial (and be reconfirmed during a deposition prior to trial). You need to choose your words carefully and remember what was said, as any conflicts 2-3 years later could hurt your case. This is certainly not what anyone wants to hear, but it's an accurate portrayal of the process... one of the reasons why I have considered a dash cam like everyone in Russia

- AB

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:50 am

http://www.mcdas.com/negligence_article.htm

Interesting review. Worth the five minutes to read it over.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:10 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

As a somewhat unrelated aside...how is "fault" apportioned in NC?

I'm Still stuck on the car vs. person liability scenario, obviously. Is the driver "always" deemed at fault? I know that is not always the case on NC roads, but our sites are not actually public roads, so is there a difference?

Why don't we have a club attorney who can give us hypothetical opinions about hypothetical situations? :stick:

OK if I understand the question:

Insurance is on the car -so if you kill somebody in my car we are both at fault. My insurance is primary, until my insurance is used up your's doesn't get touched. If you cause a 500k injury ion my car and I have 100k in insurance. Mine pays then goes after yours. In reality the companies get together behind closed doors and decide what each one will pay to get it settled. Both of us will get sued.

NC is a contributory negligence state. Theoretically, if you are any part negligent in your accident then you can not recover from the other part. Example, if you go through a green light and don't look to make sure the intersection is clear and you get wacked by someone running a red light you can't recover from the red light runner. In the real world it doesn't usually work that way it has to me more negligence to prevent recovery but that's the extreme deifinition.

ON the track, I would think a court would say you assumed the liability as soon as you chose to participate. I think that is why nobody ever makes a claim against anybody. It would be like suing the guy that stepped on my foot in a basketball game

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:55 pm

Aaron Buckley wrote:

Steven Carter wrote:

OK...so you were the "victim" in this scenario, right? without prying too deeply does that mean because you were "responsible" for 1% of the incident, you only re-couped 50% of damages?

So by extension if you willingly and voluntarily jump onto a racecourse knowing a car is coming, and are subsequently struck, you the pedestrian may be deemed negligent to some degree as apportioned by the court/jury. Or, if your unsupervised child runs in the way of a car driving through paddock at 5mph the parents will bear some degree of negligence as well? In both cases the driver is not wholly at fault then, correct?

(I know...no one's a lawyer, this isn't legal advice etc etc. Just want to get a basic understanding of the situation.)

In Ryan's case, if the deal was more than fixing a couple of beat up cars, say the person had knee damage that required multiple surgeries, it's likely would have gone to the attorneys and either a settlement happens, binding arbitration occurs, or it will go to trial. This is a jury trial and if you get a sympathetic jury (especially in the case of a unsupervised child), expect that you are in a lot of trouble. In Ryan's case with a person that is 99% at fault, a jury would likely tell them to pound sand on the claim. It all depends upon the evidence and how the attorney presents their case.

Please note, most of these cases don't go to trial until 2-3 years after the incident occurred. Thus, the pictures, descriptions, depositions and all the follow up activity by the insurance company are all that you have in the form of evidence (aside from personal testimony that you gave within a month or less of the accident). If you do give a statement after such an incident, be aware that it becomes an official document and will be used in trial (and be reconfirmed during a deposition prior to trial). You need to choose your words carefully and remember what was said, as any conflicts 2-3 years later could hurt your case. This is certainly not what anyone wants to hear, but it's an accurate portrayal of the process... one of the reasons why I have considered a dash cam like everyone in Russia

- AB

No injuries in either car, her insurance fixed her car, mine fixed my truck.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:11 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

So by extension if you willingly and voluntarily jump onto a racecourse knowing a car is coming, and are subsequently struck, you the pedestrian may be deemed negligent to some degree as apportioned by the court/jury. Or, if your unsupervised child runs in the way of a car driving through paddock at 5mph the parents will bear some degree of negligence as well? In both cases the driver is not wholly at fault then, correct?

(I know...no one's a lawyer, this isn't legal advice etc etc. Just want to get a basic understanding of the situation.)

There are different duties of care. For example I owe you more care if I invite you to my home, I should not have holes in the yard for you to fall in. If you walk onto my property, while I probably shouldn't have those holes there as long as they aren't traps it's your problem.

The big issue I always go back to is kids. Small children can not be negligent, normally thought to be under 7. If they walk out on to the race track it's your fault for hitting them. You can bring the parents in some but it's your fault but in the paddock scenerio the parents only have to say "they pulled away from me" and the burden is going to probably fall on you.

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:22 pm

clinehall wrote:

Small children can not be negligent, normally thought to be under 7. If they walk out on to the race track it's your fault for hitting them.

I'm sure legally this is correct, but regardless it's bullsh*t. If a kid can't be negligent, their parents are IMO.

FYI, I was hit by a car when I was 6 years old. It was 100% my fault, thus my parents didn't feel the need to sue the driver. I guess they should have handled it differently...maybe I would have at least gotten a new bike out of the deal.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:46 pm

Vincent Keene wrote:

clinehall wrote:

Small children can not be negligent, normally thought to be under 7. If they walk out on to the race track it's your fault for hitting them.

I'm sure legally this is correct, but regardless it's bullsh*t. If a kid can't be negligent, their parents are IMO.

FYI, I was hit by a car when I was 6 years old. It was 100% my fault, thus my parents didn't feel the need to sue the driver. I guess they should have handled it differently...maybe I would have at least gotten a new bike out of the deal.

That answers a lot of questions :evil:

Ryan Holton · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:47 pm

clinehall wrote:

Vincent Keene wrote:

clinehall wrote:

Small children can not be negligent, normally thought to be under 7. If they walk out on to the race track it's your fault for hitting them.

I'm sure legally this is correct, but regardless it's bullsh*t. If a kid can't be negligent, their parents are IMO.

FYI, I was hit by a car when I was 6 years old. It was 100% my fault, thus my parents didn't feel the need to sue the driver. I guess they should have handled it differently...maybe I would have at least gotten a new bike out of the deal.

That answers a lot of questions :evil:

I guess it would shock no one that I was hit by a car when I was 11 years old :lol:

Nobody got sued, hell I didn't even go to the doctor

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:53 pm

Ryan Holton wrote:

I guess it would shock no one that I was hit by a car when I was 11 years old :lol:

Nobody got sued, hell I didn't even go to the doctor

That answers a lot of questions :evil:

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:54 pm

clinehall wrote:

Vincent Keene wrote:

clinehall wrote:

Small children can not be negligent, normally thought to be under 7. If they walk out on to the race track it's your fault for hitting them.

I'm sure legally this is correct, but regardless it's bullsh*t. If a kid can't be negligent, their parents are IMO.

FYI, I was hit by a car when I was 6 years old. It was 100% my fault, thus my parents didn't feel the need to sue the driver. I guess they should have handled it differently...maybe I would have at least gotten a new bike out of the deal.

That answers a lot of questions :evil:

I bet it was BMW

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

A BMW with the brake pad wear indicator light and CEL illuminated for sure.

shawnwhipple · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 6:28 pm **Posts:** 603

I'm not a lawyer but I think you could make the argument that the pits/paddock at an autocross or a race track is a private parking lot and not a venue for motorsports. The actual course at an autocross and the racing surface itself are the place where the motorsport as defined takes place.

I believe that insurance companies probably shouldn't be liable for what happens on a hot track, unless they know ahead of time and can plan/charge accordingly.

To be on the safe side, don't run any body over in the paddock!

THSCC Forums

Insurance exclusion now in NC

Who is online