PH trackday thread

[73CSL]

anyone been follwoing this !

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=18&t=1332239&mid=0&nmt=Claim+from+a+track+day

[Das Chin]

yes and very concerning.

ensure you have your pride and joy insured for track is the simple answer as you just never know who else does or does not.

[shimmy]

yes and very concerning.

ensure you have your pride and joy insured for track is the simple answer as you just never know who else does or does not.



With all due respect that is not the point.

You only can insure your own car on track (unless you spend thousands) and others won't have insurance to cover your loss, nor you to cover their loss.

The issue here is that the negligence issue has been bought to the surface and used for a typical trAckday incident where we would have presumed it was "all at drivers risk".

Therefore if you hit someone you are more likely to be sued.

Always thought he M3 driver at Spa who was T boned by the Evo should have sued him.

[Mike R]

I take it you haven't read the update on this? The insurance company have withdrawn their claim against the third party and allegedly only pursued it through the courts to show how poorly worded the disclaimers were, in an effort to get them changed. They have now suggested a revised wording that they hope all track day companies will adopt that would mean that the disclaimers were water-tight and worth the paper they were written on.......

Personally, I think that is an arsehole thing to have done (unless the defendant was given prior notice that it was all a sham case and that they were never going to ask him to settle), as imaging the stress of having that hanging over you for all this time, just so they could prove a point.....

[shimmy]

I take it you haven't read the update on this? The insurance company have withdrawn their claim against the third party and allegedly only pursued it through the courts to show how poorly worded the disclaimers were, in an effort to get them changed. They have now suggested a revised wording that they hope all track day companies will adopt that would mean that the disclaimers were water-tight and worth the paper they were written on.......

Personally, I think that is an arsehole thing to have done (unless the defendant was given prior notice that it was all a sham case and that they were never going to ask him to settle), as imaging the stress of having that hanging over you for all this time, just so they could prove a point.....

talking to me?

[Mike R]

No Travis, not you specifically - just anyone reading ;).

[73CSL]

sounds more like someone fucked up in the ins company & they are now backtracking

I take it you haven't read the update on this? The insurance company have withdrawn their claim against the third party and allegedly only pursued it through the courts to show how poorly worded the disclaimers were, in an effort to get them changed. They have now suggested a revised wording that they hope all track day companies will adopt that would mean that the disclaimers were water-tight and worth the paper they were written on.......

Personally, I think that is an arsehole thing to have done (unless the defendant was given prior notice that it was all a sham case and that they were never going to ask him to settle), as imaging the stress of having that hanging over you for all this time, just so they could prove a point.....

[LeinsCSL]

sounds more like someone fucked up in the ins company & they are now backtracking

Yep, I suspect once they got named & shamed someone in there decided they had better change tack before they lost a lot of trackday insurance business. Won't be long before one of the "No win, No fee" crowd get in on the act though if these disclaimers aren't all that well sorted