LFA 68 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Interesting thread on PH for those that do trackdays. Driver held liable in court for damage to another's car on track; claim bought by the other driver's insurer. http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=18&t=1332239&mid=149886&nmt=Claim+from+a+track+day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rob275 1817 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Can this even be done? I didn't even think Track insurance was compulsory? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LFA 68 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 No it isn't, but the real concern here is about negligence related claims on trackdays, in this case bought by an insurer, who had covered someone's car on the trackday. There is a 'gentlemens agreement' that you pay for your own damage on track days, which is reflected in most track day operators terms and conditions. This case serves as a reminder that liability can still be held on track. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lauren 2259 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Insurance didn't claim the money off the guy in the end. They also encouraged TDO's to add an additional disclaimer to help stop this happening again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 442 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Interesting - Lauren, can you 'point' to some definitive stuff on this?I'm pissed off.. applied to a firm called "Competive Car Insurance" (or similar) for trackday cover for Spa. Seems like all the other so-called 'trackday specialists' are only interested in UK tracks... including Ollie at Sky.. I went to CCI because 'Book-A-Track' says they'd cover it..CCI (or whatever they're called) can't be bothered to respond to my request. And I did it by fax! None of your 'email' ether. So they can't claim they never received it - I've got the cover sheet confirming fax delivery.Does my head in. Promise the earth and deliver... zilch.Spec K Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rob275 1817 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Personally i don't see the point in cover for track, I mean Lauren you may have a different opinion on the matter as you've done a fair few. But aren't the majority of insurers not insuring car on car collisions? I'd like to think the majority of people are sensible and this RARELY occurs... i'd also like to think i'm competent enough in my own driving ability that I wouldn't push it so far that i'd go flying off the track. Not at and speed that would render me pummeling into something anyway. Do not bring Keith's incident up, that was a race! Not saying i'm an amazing driver, but personally of what i've done on track so far I find the roads more dangerous... lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 442 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Rob - it was not a 'race'. I was 'fighting the clock' in a sprint... not other competitors.. if there'd been more cars with me I wouldn't have crunched..Difference is that you don't 'time' on a trackday - which qualifies trackday insurance - whereas on TSS it's timed.And you will never be a better, more competent driver by trying to develop your car control/skills on UK roads.My opinion..Spec K Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keethos 842 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Maaaann....I've finally read through all of that.....and I'm still slightly lost....everyone is worried about personal injury claims but the insurance company was trying to claim the payout they had to fork out for to replace the caterham by suing Owen, those are two separate things aren't they? Or can you sue anyone for anything as long as negligence is involved?And this new disclaimer is just to stop people from suing each other right (unless it's personal injury/death due to negligence)? But it was the insurance company who went after Owen, not the caterham driver right? So that disclaimer doesn't apply here and them testing this law suit to help prevent it is bull right?It's been a good read to understand a lil more about law but they didn't have repeat themselves and there are still plenty of unanswered questions there. Does this bother any of you at all? Has it put any of you off trackdays? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keethos 842 Report post Posted September 30, 2013 Oh and I feel real sorry for this Owen fella, I would be freaking the hell out for being sued, nevermind that £21k payout, but to have this hovering over you for 3 years, I reckon it would have had serious mental ramifications, lack of sleep, not eating, unable to concentrate at work, possible loss of job because of that.....all that stress only for them to drop it and say it was all a test......I'd bloody try and counter sue them.....do these type of things take this long to sort out? If so why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lauren 2259 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 But aren't the majority of insurers not insuring car on car collisions? I'd like to think the majority of people are sensible and this RARELY occurs...No trackday cover will pay out for the other car if you have a car on car collision. Cars hitting each other is so rare that I'd wonder if it's really worth worrying about. (interesting forum problem, I went to change 'is' to 'are'. But I cannot do it, despite the cursor being in the right place, when I backspace, it's at the end of my sentence). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LFA 68 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 I take insurance so my repairs get paid for if someone takes me out or I have an act of god, on some fluids for example. In both those scenarios I'd be pissed off so insurance will make me happier In the light of this legal judgement, I think most track dayers ( who drive normalish cars ) are concerned about having to pay for someone else's GT3RS. SpecK. CCI will cover Spa. I think the fax is about as relevant a means of communication as the pigeon, these days. I usually email admincci@towergate.co.uk. My cover is included at Spa, as part of CCIs five tracks a year deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jonesy_135 11 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 You say that LFA but a Fax is still a legal document whereas an email is not... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LFA 68 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 liame yb sdom fo tsil ruoy eviecer dna Email is legally binding and discoverable in litigation; that's why your insurer will happily email your policy docs these days Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LFA 68 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 Say what LFA; what gobbledygook is that and why has my ipad put what I typed in reverse,lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rob275 1817 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 LOL, how random.. Yeah i recently got my docs via email. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
keelerad 256 Report post Posted October 1, 2013 Looks like its gone into a right to left input mode, is it hebrew that is written right to left ?Alec Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sideways? 33 Report post Posted October 11, 2013 You say that LFA but a Fax is still a legal document whereas an email is not...@LFA & Rob275, the email is theoretically not legally binding until you print it on real paper... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
