Track Day Accident - Court awards costs

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

Friday afternoon curiosity got the better of me and unless I've missed something, whilst covering marshalls/spectators, it doesn't seem to tackle the issue of one car hitting another in an on track incident?

 

"Claims by one competitor against another actually competing in the same event are excluded."

 

See section 7: http://www.msauk.org/uploadedfiles/msa_forms/bluebooks/12/381_386_Insurance_&_Motor_Competitions_(Appendix%202).pdf

 

You are correct, I didn't mean to imply that it covered other drives or their cars. Only Marshall's Officials, Spectators etc. So with a Sprint or Hillclimb and only 1 car on a section of track at a time, much less worrying. 

 

I am not aware of there ever having been a claim due to a racing incident, you only have to look at the cost of some of the recent F1 crashes, which would be very large into the £ millions sometimes.

[Norman Verona]

Wile, no one was competing, it was a track day. As far as I know MSA rules do not apply.

 

If you read the original post on Blatchat the poster doesn't seem as if he will pursue this through the courts. He's put in a claim and the insurer has sought damages as they are entitled to do.

 

This isn't the first time an insurer has pursued redress after paying out for a claim. On one case that I know off the insured pleaded with them not to as it was his friend they were suing. 

[Wile E. Coyote]

Wile, no one was competing, it was a track day. As far as I know MSA rules do not apply.

 

I know that Norman.  

Nick's post seemed to suggest that the MSA had insurance that provided full third party cover (including for those driving on track) - I had a look at it as I was curious as to how they could source such cover at any price (given the inevitability of racing incidents) and, if they could do it, that there was probably a way for TDOs/participants to get cover - but they don't...

[FILFAN]

I think we're missing a vital posative point out of all of this.

Aslong as it's not you driving like a wally and someone causes damage to your car then it would seem that you are entitled to claim of that driver. Insurance isn't worth bothering about as it dosnt cover third party claims.

Just keep the cameras rolling when your out there, don't drive up peoples chuffs and avoid certain track day organisers who run their days like testing days.

[alexander72]

what vodka jelly man said + 1

[stephenh]

Filfan has the answer, don't be stupid, drive in a manner that is unlikely to cause damage to others and their cars, and you protect yourself from liability. The 3rd. party has to prove that you have been negligent, and that your negligence has caused them loss. 

[pickmaster Andy Lowe]

I might be wrong but remember Barry Sheens career ending crash on a practice day

He ran into the back of a broken down bike at speed

Then sued the ACU auto cycle union for damages despite signing all the disclaimers

Then went to Australia till the heat died down

Or did I miss understand what happened in that case!!!!!!

[FILFAN]

In regards to the organisers waver, could it be upheld if you can prove that they were been negligent to their responsibilities. Such as if there is an obstruction on or off the track and they don't put the yellows out. Or allowing people to drive like idiots and not obiding to the rules set out in the briefing.

[Nick PC]

Wile E. Coyote" That wouldn't fly: an external party (e.g. the insurance company) wouldn't be party to that agreement.

The insurer is only allowed to stand in the place of their customer and have no extra rights. If customer signs a contract the affects insurers rights they can avoid the claim. It is usual where an uninsured party is involved for courts to be sympathetic to the uninsured party. The uninsured party must however put forward there case and if they fail then the court will not be sympathetic.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The insurer is only allowed to stand in the place of their customer and have no extra rights. If customer signs a contract the affects insurers rights they can avoid the claim. It is usual where an uninsured party is involved for courts to be sympathetic to the uninsured party. The uninsured party must however put forward there case and if they fail then the court will not be sympathetic.

 

You think that an insurance company will grant an insured party the ability to remove their ability to recover any losses they suffer?

 

It will almost certainly be a contractual provision that they can't.  Besides which, earlier post from chap over on PH (who seems to know his stuff) points out that you can never disclaim liability for negligence (which is what this case apparently hinged on).

[Norman Verona]

From my experience it maters not if you were driving negligently or not a case for damages can be brought. You would then have to defend it even though you had not been negligent. To do so properly you will need a legal team which is expensive and will cost far more than the costs awarded by the court should you win.

 

If this case is a precedent then we may well see more cases along the same lines. It may be worth inquiring on the cost of insuring against being sued, rather than the actual damage. 

[stephenh]

Wile, no one was competing, it was a track day. As far as I know MSA rules do not apply.

 

If you read the original post on Blatchat the poster doesn't seem as if he will pursue this through the courts. He's put in a claim and the insurer has sought damages as they are entitled to do.

 

This isn't the first time an insurer has pursued redress after paying out for a claim. On one case that I know off the insured pleaded with them not to as it was his friend they were suing. 

The solution is easy, you just don't claim on your insurance. However, if you expect the insurer to pay you for losses which were the fault of a third party, then naturally the insurer will expect to claim against the third party, and to use your name in any  court proceedings to achieve that. 

[M444TTB]

Is there any way the insurance company could forcibly find out who you were? If you hand no number plates on the car or it wasn't road legal and you didn't give you name? I can only think the TDO would need to be forced to hand over your details.

[M444TTB]

I haven't been on a track day since I saw a stunning Lotus 11 smashed into segments by a complete pillock in a Z4 at Castle Combe several years ago.  11 had a problem and was parked on the grass well off the circuit just over the rise at the end of the start/finish straight.  Z4 driver took the rise way too fast, completely lost it and took the 11 out on the grass.  Fortunately the 11 driver was out of his car otherwise he would probably have been killed.  The state of the 11 almost made me weep.  I couldn't see how on earth the Z4 driver wasn't completely responsible for that.  I'd also spent a fair bit of time that day being tailgated by an old M5 and didn't really enjoy a couple of tonnes of metal being 10ft from my head at 100mph.  Those two together along with the increasing lairiness of the max power brigade made me give up on track days. They even allow drifting at Combe now goodness me. 

 

Here's the video of said incident. Funny how time changes your memory of events. I thought it was a Z3 MCoupe though. The Lotus driver's problem was also a lack of talent*. I bet he was glad he didn't mooch around any longer looking at the car too! I'd have been over the tyre wall in double quick time given where it had stopped! Aside from the fact the Lotus had crashed first this isn't a dissimilar event to the one we're discussing.

 

*or fell off on the same fluid

 

EDIT: Chatting to a friend about this reminded me what happened back in the paddock too (which is where we were apparently so I must have only seen this video). Some dangler walks straight up to the BMW owner and offers him some stupid amount for salvage. I thought he was going to smack him!

[Norman Verona]

The solution is easy, you just don't claim on your insurance. However, if you expect the insurer to pay you for losses which were the fault of a third party, then naturally the insurer will expect to claim against the third party, and to use your name in any  court proceedings to achieve that. 

 

That's not what I meant. In your solution there's no point in having it in the first place. The point I was making was that the insurer will attempt to recover its losses whatever you, the insured, say.

 

I think there's more to this than we are being led to believe. I suspect that the Type R was going much to fast for the conditions, probably ignored marshal's flags and was, to put it mildly, negligent.

 

Why do I say this. Well there have been many claims made for damage incurred on a track day by people who have track day insurance and there appears not to be any attempt at recovery before now.