Good post from J Salmon. Over 200 cars at VIR for Zone 2 PCA this weekend and a fair bit of carnage. Some of that due to the changeable weather, some of it due to, get this, <<coolant hose failures>>. Two cars with significant damage when the first spun on his own coolant and another went off, both impacting the tire wall separated by just about three feet and displacing several tire bundles. And yes, that's why I get paid to be in the right seat...
Tell us where racers can get one that does not exclude racing? The ones I have seen even deny coverage if you and your buddy are racing your jet skis among two drunk buddies at lake powell ! I fear there are many people out there who think they are covered. The insurance co will always screw you like if you crash a streetcar they give you actual cash value even when you buy a stated value policy.
My personal insurance is through what used to be called AIG private client services. It is now called Chartis or something like that. It is not particularly cheap, but they do pay claims. (If you're interested, I can tell the story about when my mother's home got hit by a hurricane. And yes, I insure her home.) I specifically asked when I got the policy, and I have read the policy. (Yeah, I'm one of those weird ones who actually read insurance policies.) In my case, I'm covered n any event that is not a "timed race," which I interpret to also include test and tune. But I probably should reread the policy to check this. Said another way, there appears to be a big difference between "racing" and everything else. I'm sure you can buy a rider that will cover racing, if you're willing to pay the money. I suspect the top F1 teams buy insurance on their drivers. Hope this helps. Dale
I guess it could always be worse, like at T14. Don't worry podner. I'm coming back to VIR someday. Dale
"My personal insurance is through what used to be called AIG private client services. It is now called Chartis or something like that. It is not particularly cheap, but they do pay claims. (If you're interested, I can tell the story about when my mother's home got hit by a hurricane." I also have Chartis, and am a customer for life after their professional and prompt handling of a very expensive claim (car fire).
My insurance is with a Chubb company, also expensive, and it too covers you on the track as long as it is not a timed event. The big trend now, however, is to put language in the policy excluding coverage for incidents on any surface or facility on which speed contests or racing occurs -so theoretically you aren't covered when you go to a sports event like a football game where they allow auto-X on non event weekends. Very squirrely.
THIS would exclude this type event. An 'event policy' can be written but it's expensive and it's timed to the minute...usually for a weekend for example. It covers the organizers and the track, not the participants!
Jim: I wish that were true in California. The leading case in California is: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/knight-jewett.html I've fought that issue over and over again here, but the courts seem to hold that the Jewett case controls. There are circumstances to get around the release here, but those are few and far between. However, Laguna Seca has only paid out once for a track incident, and it was when I represented Reggie Pridmore years and years ago. Art
Are we talking damage or liability coverage? Definitely property damage is available, see here: http://hpdeins.locktonaffinity.com/Default.aspx True. The tracks require liability cover by the renter, naming the track as a named insured, before each event begins.
Thanks. I guess the bar is raised to: "conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport."
"conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport." Which raises a hard question for people like me who are all for personal responsibility, assumption of risk, etc etc - that is, when is the track, or the sanctioning body, or another party so reckless/negligent that they should be held liable. I don't favor a "blank check" for sanctioning bodies, for example. I'd assumed that "gross negligence" would be the applicable standard; not very precise, I admit. It appears that in some circumstances conduct that most of us would agree was "grossly negligent" wouldn't give rise to liability. I'd rather err in favor of enforcing waivers, but at some point ....
An example of what isn't gross negligence: Irwindale, when it was first built, had a track entrance at the exit of turn 2. Right behind the exit was a concrete wall. So when you got bumped coming off of turn 2, you went straight into the concrete wall. After the first death, the track closed the entrance. The designer allegedly had assisted with the design of Fontana, and everyone thought he knew what he was doing. Fortunately, we entered into a high low agreement with the defense counsel, because the court held that the design defect was indeed covered by the release. I don't recall the name of the young Mexican Driver who was driving for Penske at Laguna, and who died at the entrance to the corkscrew because the throttle stayed on, but his family got defensed on the basis of the release also. Art
"the name of the young Mexican Driver who was driving for Penske at Laguna" Gonzalo Rodgriguez of Uruguay. Brake failure? I'm not sure I agree that visible track characteristics shouldn't be covered by a release; maybe they should be weighed by the participants as part of their decision to run. Art, I know you've mentioned previously that young racers may have no leverage, and in essence be forced to race under dangerous conditions. Maybe that's gross negligence on the part of the sanctioning body.
Once again, I think everybody needs to be clear about the difference between DE and racing. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think the courts would have a different view toward implied assumption of liability between a licensed race car driver, who presumably has been trained and is knowledge about the inherent risks, than someone who takes their car to the track for the first or second time. In other words, DE may be toast. Dale
Very sad for all involved. No guarantee that the outcome would have been different, but it is another data point arguing in favor of being in a race car while on a race track.
Yes! I have found this. I want personal liability and vicarious liability but it does not exist. It appears the best way to protect is to do more classic "asset protection".
I am hopeful that this will not be the case, but insurance companies will almost certainly continue to seek to reduce the gray areas, and, unfortunately, juries often do strange things. DE should be covered as long as they adhere to the basic rules as set forth by the insurance companies, which might well be refined or re-defined as a result of fatal incidents. I've seen some pretty awful driving at "track days", though (not that I'm suggesting that that may have had anything to do with this incident), and if tightening these events up a bit is the result, that's not a terrible idea. Better requirements for solo-ing, more scrutiny of on-track performance, more careful review of the run groups and heightened inspections of safety gear, just for starters. Obviously, novice drivers can't be held to the same standards as pros, but their cars are almost as fast in many respects. Thus, they need to be qualified to handle them. And, even despite this, accidents will still happen and people will be injured. So, either parties accept the consequences, or they probably shouldn't be out there. CW
That is the route I took. Even old 90's cars are darn fast. Problem is I have seen some very crap welded pro cages and very poorly thought out associated safety systems. Designing a good cage is a compromise that takes very hard work and lots of real thinking.
safety issues with de lie with participants and not the equipment. too many drivers treat de the way a pro treats a testing day or worse, like a qualifying day. todays sports cars are faster than race cars i grew up with so lapping at about 75% of cars capability should be enough. anyone who wants to push harder should be in something like a time trial setting with all the proper race and liability rules. leave 'simple' de for the rest of us before its legislated away
Unfortunately, my guess is none of us will have a say in what happens to DE days. If PCA gets hammered because of this, a change will come. To what, I'm not sure. I'll let everybody know later how it works out, but I just switched out of a PCA DE day in my Cayman to a test n' tune event. Frankly, I feel safer running my production Cayman at 7/10s on a track I know very well with a bunch of race cars than a DE event. Dale
Things happen at race tracks when you have all levels of horsepower cars verses all different levels of experience. When we sign in we accept the risks in order to enjoy some track time. On Feb 25th, this year, I rolled my car at Laguna Seca. I was not hurt bad but the car was totaled. My 360 was in the shop getting new brakes all the way around, so it was my first day out with my "new" Miata. I got two wheels off after turn 9 in the middle of the fast left turn sweeper. My two wheels sank and the car flipped. I was OK, x-rays did not show any broken bones, just scrapes, swollen hand, and the normal aches and pains expected after a crash. I assume that because of all the rain the sand/gravel was much much softer than we would expect it to be. If a different surface was there I may have been able to save my car, who knows. This is just another example of the unknown variables that we encounter at tracks. It would be nice if track officials or track day organizers could/would account for every possibility. I am sure costs would sky rocket.
What about Engine Ice? Not sure what it is, but it is allowed by the sanctioning bodies in motorcycle racing. Water and water wetter are the only other allowed coolants.
