Insurance Agent being a Kill Joy.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:44 pm

Well, I hate to bring this up, BUT, due to the death this weekend at the Disney Track and a conversation I had with one of the parties involved with the death at Summit Point I thought I might bring this up again. I dearly love this sport and want it to continue but I also have a legal responsibility as I insure many of you and am a sponsor.

There was a thread a couple of years ago about this but a lot of new people are here so I thought I would start a new one.

A couple of years ago the NC Auto policy (all companies use the same one) was endorsed to (in my educated belief) to exclude HPDE's, Autocrosses and about any other motorsport we hold dear. Since then that endorsement has been incorporated in a new "Amendatory Endorsement that comes with your policy. It is not in your policy it's self but will probably be on a separate page and be listed on your Declarations page as NC0013 01/14.

Here is the important part:
We do not provide Liability Coverage for the ownership,
maintenance or use of:
3. Any vehicle while participating in any prearranged,
organized, or spontaneous:
a. racing contest, speed contest, demolition, stunt
activity, or competitive driving event, or in practice
or preparation for any such contest or use of this
type; or
b. use of a vehicle at a facility designed for racing or
high performance driving unless such use is for an
activity other than high performance driving, high
speed driving, and other than those activities listed
in 3.a. above.
This exclusion applies only to the extent that the limit of
liability of this policy exceeds the minimum limit required
by the financial responsibility law of North Carolina

In my humble opinion (not really humble,I have been in the insurance business since 1984 first handling Bodily injury claims and then as sales agent) this will allow the companies to not pay for any claims made due to incidents at HPDE's, Autocrosses, Rally Crosses and the like.

The last part does provide the state minimium of 30k per person 60k per accident but if you kill somebody that is not enough.

Why did the Insurance department do this? I can't find out. I don't know who initiated it or why.

I decided to bring this up for several reasons. Mainly, most insurance people aren't worth a warm bucket of spit. Companies push them to sell base on price and nothing else. Most of them have no idea about this endorsement and probably will not risk loosing a sale by answering this correctly if they did. I recently had someone who knows me from the track call and tell me their agent said there company specifically provided coverage for the track, but I don't believe it. I think they didn't want to risk loosing the customer.

This hasn't been tested in court yet but it will soon (in legal terms that means in the next 5 years) due to the Summit Point Accident last year. The driver of that car was a resident of NC. Until it is tested I am going under the assumption that there will be no coverage. I know the company in the Summit Point .
Accident has denied coverage. I won't mention that company name on here but it's one of the big ones.

My other reason is I could be liable if I'm not pretty clear on the subject. I don't want to hide under a rock and start driving a Camry but I don't want anybody's widow to be able to say I never told their husband he didn't have coverage.

Ok, this is probably beating a dead horse but I feel better.

Steven Carter · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:06 pm

Where would umbrella personal liability policies come into play, theoretically, in a situation similar to what you described? Personal injury only, or property damages as well? Neither?

I can't see where what you wrote is substantially different from what has been previously released. This is just a reiteration, correct?

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:19 pm

Cline,

Thanks again for the heads up. Also, as I understood from before, and umbrella liability policy will *not* cover liability in these cases since the limits needed to trigger the umbrella can't be met (due to the minimum liability limit being the maximum in these cases).

Also, a bit off topic, but I can't believe that none of the coverage I read about the Disney track incident noted that the car was going the WRONG direction around the track. It was traveling clockwise when the track is designed for counterclockwise. This results in direct exposure to knife-edged like ends of barriers that aren't protected, and in this case the car slid sideways and impacted that barrier right on the passenger door killing the instructor. Almost all tracks in the country will have similar exposure if you drive them in the wrong direction...at least at all the points along the track that have emergency vehicle pull outs. You can look at VIR and see similar designs like the Disney one in turn 3 and 4 such that if you were going around the track backwards you'd be exposed to hitting those barrier ends. This was a profoundly preventable death with only a small amount of thinking ahead of time.

Lastly, some company might want to consider writing liability coverage for HPDE, Rallyx, and Autox participants as all the "track insurance" policies I've seen are simply to cover damage to your own car which of course, even if it is a 991 GT3RS, will be the least of your worries if you are deemed at fault for someone's death on track.

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:24 pm

clinehall wrote:

Well, I hate to bring this up, BUT, due to the death this weekend at the Disney Track

Slightly off topic, but I was informed today the Disney accident was a direct result of the track being ran in the opposite direction of which it was designed. I happen to do drafting work for an international race track designer and he will tell you that is unacceptable. The barriers and run-off areas are designed with the direction of travel in mind. Once you run it counter-race (backwards) all bets are off.

Driving at high-speed is dangerous and we all accept that fact, but the survivor's families always want someone to blame, hence lawsuits, hence insurance, hence denial clauses.

Edit: Chuck beat me to it.

RodneyWright · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:26 pm

Seems to me that insurance companies need to step up and recognize that this going to continue as the car company ads promote the next high powered car sliding across the pavement. Accidents happen, which is very unfortunate for someone to be hurt, let alone killed. Why not do something like the companies that offer HPDE insurance. Granted right now it's only for car coverage, but I'm sure folks would be willing to pay a premium to have extended coverage for these events. Or is that complete wishful thinking on my part. Seems to me the insurance companies would ultimately make money on these events even w/ a payout, and that's what insurance companies want, to keep their outflow of dollars at a minimum.

I'm thinking if insurance companies had it their way, we'd all be driving autonomous cars with accident avoidance along w/ a bubble wrap dispenser in case of a bump. Of course all of the cars would be beige as colors like red and black may evoke some feelings of sportiness....

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:26 pm

Steven Carter wrote:

Where would umbrella personal liability policies come into play, theoretically, in a situation similar to what you described? Personal injury only, or property damages as well? Neither?

I can't see where what you wrote is substantially different from what has been previously released. This is just a reiteration, correct?

Yes, it is just a reiteration.

Since this hasn't been tested, I can't say for sure how the Umbrella would come into play but the Umbrella has language something to the effect of WE do cover the ownership, use, loading, or unloading of automobiles we we protect This kicks in above the underlying limits so my guess is that if there is a 250k underlying requirement the umbrella would respond to any award above that. My personal hope is that if I have an umbrella the company is now looking at a much larger potential loss so they would be more apt to respond at a lower level.

JamesMilko · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:27 pm

I have a feeling that the word 'negligence' is going to be used in a court room very often w/r/t the Disney wreck.

clinehall · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:35 pm

RodneyWright wrote:

Seems to me that insurance companies need to step up and recognize that this going to continue as the car company ads promote the next high powered car sliding across the pavement. Accidents happen, which is very unfortunate for someone to be hurt, let alone killed. Why not do something like the companies that offer HPDE insurance.

...

WEll I guess if those HPDE companies thought they could make a profit they would. I would think the problem is people are more concerned about crashing their financed car than they are potential financial ruin from an accident. Liability insurance only works because it is required. If it wasn't required on the street you and I couldn't afford to buy it, you need large numbers to spread the cost around.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 2:53 pm

clinehall wrote:

RodneyWright wrote:

Seems to me that insurance companies need to step up and recognize that this going to continue as the car company ads promote the next high powered car sliding across the pavement. Accidents happen, which is very unfortunate for someone to be hurt, let alone killed. Why not do something like the companies that offer HPDE insurance.

...

WEll I guess if those HPDE companies thought they could make a profit they would. I would think the problem is people are more concerned about crashing their financed car than they are potential financial ruin from an accident. Liability insurance only works because it is required. If it wasn't required on the street you and I couldn't afford to buy it, you need large numbers to spread the cost around.

Soooo...thinking like insurance companies...force organizations to have liability coverage for each participant if you're going to cover the overall event organizers (or the overall race track policy). Sell more insurance. Further force the price of an HPDE event out of the reach of current participants. (thinking back to 1985 and the BMWCCA events we (National Capital Chapter) did at Summit Point where we had a Fall "Hot Shoe" weekday track event for advanced drivers only, and it was all of $35 for the day).

Vincent Keene · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:23 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Sell more insurance. Further force the price of an HPDE event out of the reach of current participants. (thinking back to 1985 and the BMWCCA events we (National Capital Chapter) did at Summit Point where we had a Fall "Hot Shoe" weekday track event for advanced drivers only, and it was all of $35 for the day).

Yep, prices have increased 'slightly' since 1985. The actual numbers are classified, but let's just say if you'd like to rent VIR-F in 2015 and charge your buddies $35 each, you'll have run groups with almost 250 cars per session. :shock:

Roger McDaniels · **Posted:** Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:50 pm

Article about the Disney crash:

http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/please ... 1697610915

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Wed Feb 03, 2016 10:24 am

Cline,

Any update on the Summit case or any other cases where the revised NC liability policies are being challenged/enforced?

clinehall · **Posted:** Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:39 pm

Chuck Branscomb wrote:

Cline,

Any update on the Summit case or any other cases where the revised NC liability policies are being challenged/enforced?

Nothing that I know of. I'll keep you posted if I do.

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:18 am

Cline,

Let me present a summary of insurance coverage for NC policies and see if it's correct.

For HPDEs, track events, any driving event on or at a race track facility, also all autocross and rallycross events:

1) Maximum liability coverage is limited to $30k per person, $60k per incident (the minimum allowed by NC law) -- this would include any damage done to other people's property or their body.

2) There is no coverage for your personal property (car).

3) Regardless of the limits of an umbrella policy, these are not applicable to providing *any* liability coverage since they only take over once the policy limits of the auto policy are reached (typically $300k-$500k), and since the policy language limits coverage to $30k, this prevents the umbrella policy from being useful.

Is the above an accurate summary? Or does even that bare minimum liability coverage not exist at a timed event (autocross, rallycross, time trials)?

Also, I think the above (or whatever the corrected version of it is) also applies to anyone who engages in a "contest of speed" on a public road (i.e. racing away from a stoplight), right?

Finally, I assume no update on the Summit Point lawsuit? Oh, and there is still no source for purchasing personal liability insurance coverage for a track/autox/rallyx event that you know of? (perhaps it can't be sold in NC by law?)

Thanks,
Chuck

Chuck Branscomb · **Posted:** Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:30 am

Fast forward a year...any update on the Summit Point incident Cline? Any further info on HPDE/autocross liability coverage? (i.e. there does not appear to be a single company willing to write personal liability coverage for HPDE events).

Thanks,
Chuck

THSCC Forums

Insurance Agent being a Kill Joy.

Who is online