Insurance exclusion now in NC

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:03 pm

shawnwhipple wrote:

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!

The key is how "at any facililty designed for racing or high performance driving, unless it is being used for purposes other than high sped or high performance driving" is interpreted. I agree with your assisment Judge Whipple. I have been searching for some examples on insurance sites but haven't found anything yet.

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:34 pm

So we are liable and not covered by any insurance, the club's or otherwise, if we hit a pedestrian on course?

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:08 pm

Yes, as has always been the case. The waiver says you acknowledge the risk to yourself and car. It says you can't sue THSCC. It says you can't sue participants.The difference now is that if you still attempt to sue a participant, their car insurances liability will not cover it in the event the waiver doesnt hold up for whatever reason.

Bill Aycock · **Joined:** Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:55 pm **Posts:** 117

By the way it is written, not even the bus would be covered.

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:24 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Yes, as has always been the case. The waiver says you acknowledge the risk to yourself and car. It says you can't sue THSCC. It says you can't sue participants.The difference now is that if you still attempt to sue a participant, their car insurances liability will not cover it in the event the waiver doesnt hold up for whatever reason.

Thanks. I figured the car would not be covered but I never thought about the liability involved with the pedestrians on course.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:29 pm

Well you bring up an important point. For instance IF we were to run at the Burlington site which has multiple ingress and egress points, non participating pedestrians could be an issue.

steve remchak · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:45 pm

Sounds like the driver's meeting just got a bunch more serious.

Sorry Donnie, my putz-ness may have appeared to be "over-the-top". I was merely repeating something that has been said many times.

Jim P says it all the time.................

RobLupella · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:59 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Yes, as has always been the case. The waiver says you acknowledge the risk to yourself and car. It says you can't sue THSCC. It says you can't sue participants.The difference now is that if you still attempt to sue a participant, their car insurances liability will not cover it in the event the waiver doesnt hold up for whatever reason.

But I think as has been said earlier, an organization/company can not waiver away negligence via signature. The company/organization has a duty to take reasonable precautions so no matter what someone signs if we as a club are negligent then we may be deemed liable.

I don't want to be the one who hits the kid so I will be driving slowly through the pits.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:09 pm

RobLupella wrote:

But I think as has been said earlier, an organization/company can not waiver away negligence via signature. The company/organization has a duty to take reasonable precautions so no matter what someone signs if we as a club are negligent then we may be deemed liable.

I hope what you said is obvious to everyone.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:10 pm

steve remchak wrote:

Sounds like the driver's meeting just got a bunch more serious.

This

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:15 pm

JamesShort wrote:

Well you bring up an important point. For instance IF we were to run at the Burlington site which has multiple ingress and egress points, non participating pedestrians could be an issue.

I was thinking about participaiting(course workers) pedestrians.

JamesShort · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:17 pm

MarcusMcRae wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

Well you bring up an important point. For instance IF we were to run at the Burlington site which has multiple ingress and egress points, non participating pedestrians could be an issue.

I was thinking about participaiting(course workers) pedestrians.

I understand and I answered with that assumption. But you sparked an orthogonal thought regarding non participants.

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:20 pm

JamesShort wrote:

orthogonal.

Nerd.

Les Davis · **Joined:** Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:04 pm **Posts:** 2059

MarcusMcRae wrote:

JamesShort wrote:

orthogonal.

Nerd.

You did realize this before now right?

steve remchak · **Posted:** Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:41 pm

Wouldn't the use of a word that most of us can't pronounce let alone know the definition lean more toward the premise of "Elitist Nerd" ?

THSCC Forums

Insurance exclusion now in NC

Who is online