JjCoDeX75

Hi All,

Whilst trying to reconcile my latest insurance situation with my car prior to an exciting trip to the ring, I came across the following quotation which seems to be reasonably useful...



"The Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits a UK insurer from excluding minimum level cover anywhere in an EU member state in a place where insurance is mandatory. Any clause in an insurance policy seeking to exclude mandatory cover is of no effect. However, the cover required by law is minimum level cover. Therefore, third party only. If you require comprehensive cover then you should ask your insurance broker for this."

Now from my perspective, I am only concerned about third party liability. Generally if you smash your own car up, it is misadventure to a degree, and so I am reasonably comfortable with this consequence. What I am principally concerned about is the third party liability, which potentially could be significant.


By my understanding of the above quotation, IRRESPECTIVE of whether your insurance company choose to specifically exclude the Nurburgring, they will be obliged to pay up for any third party damage under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Would this seem logical?

Comments welcomed!

JJ

R4N SS

iTrader: (6)

im sure chip raised this point a few times in the past - cant remember the outcome but a very valid point.

interesting

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

out there next weekend! and the weekend after.... v excited!

Not been since PF trip and that seems AGES ago!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Ive yet to get any sort of official repsonse from any one of the insurers on this forum with regards to the 1988 traffic act, but I agree with you that it should be impossible for an insurer to avoid a payout on the basis that the act of offering insurance requires compliance to those terms by law, and anything attempting to contradict it, will by definition be an illegal clause.

JonnyBravo

I have read the same and as far as I'm aware its exactly the case.

I tried getting Chris Knott on another forum to confirm it but iirc he avoided the queston

timrud

Yes but insurance companies could counter that by saying they exclude race tracks, time trials etc. So technically they don't have to proivde the mandatory level of cover there.

However that is just me playing devils advocate to your point, rather than having any hard fact to base this on.

JonnyBravo

Its not a race track, nor can you time your laps.

If they had evidence, ie a video that you were timing your laps then maybe then they could get out of it, otherwise I can't see how.

JjCoDeX75

Hmmmm

I wonder if below is the method of their duplicity!

"All insurance policies are required by law to pay for Third Party losses
caused by the insured party. This is enshrined in the Road Traffic Act, BUT,
and this is a massive but, you cannot assume that means you are covered.
Many policies (and I am talking generally) contain a clause saying something
to the effect that "If XYZ insurer is obligated to meet a claim it would
otherwise not pay, then XYZ insurance co may reclaim the settlement costs
from the insured." This clause covers the insurance company on a number of
fronts, including where the insured party has obtained cover under false
pretences. But some insurance companies are also applying this clause to
claims from the 'Ring, and the Ombudsman has so far come down on their side."

The above was obtained from a discussion forum on the Adrian Flux site, which to be fair is biassed.

I understand that one such case is at the high level of appeal as we speak, and is being handled by a Legal firm in Leeds. I think we need to watch that with great interest.

I find the above unsatisfactory though - surely the above is tantamount to refusing to provide cover in accordance with the Road Traffic Act? At the point at which they pay out and then ask for the money from you, it is simply a loan surely, and not insurance!!!!

@ Porkie - hi fella, long time no speak - I take it from your sig that you have bought something italian and red (not salami!)

JJ

Oranoco

Insurers not willing to clarify would indicate that this is exactly the case and the clause is not lawful. They are usually pretty damn quick at providing the facts and info if they're in the right.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

The nurburgring on a tourist day is NOT a racetrack, it is a road that requires by law you to have insurance, racetracks do NOT require you by law to have 3rd party insurance.
The only way the insurer could claim you were "time trialling" would be if you were found guilty of that in a german court of law I believe (its illegal to time trial on german roads)

The fact that its a stretch of road that is sometimes used as a racetrack is irrelevant, so are the streets of monaco, or for that matter the streets used in the birmingham super-prix.

When german law says the ring is a road on a particular day, then its a road.

Indeed, I dont beleive there is any truth at all in what you are saying.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

JJ, the claim in question, was it a third party only claim, or did it extend beyond that?

Attempting to claim for your own vehicle could easily be considered a breach, as there is NO legal requirement for anything other than basic 3rd party cover.

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

yep! LOOOOOOOOOOOVE it.

and your sig has just reminded me!

Must get around to selling the 911. I just never ever drive it anymore.

Hows yours?

Benni

Off the 'Ring soon in a friends new Vauxhaull, I'm very excited. Lapping that in such a beast will make my year.

Benni.

JjCoDeX75

@ Chip - 3rd party only, as I recall - they effectively paid for barrrier etc by all accounts then charged the insured for it - which was upheld by the ombudsman, though is currently in appeal (from what very very limited info I have had!!!!)


Mine is fine, though in need of a deep clean! I must admit I am in no hurry to sell, though a 430 (coupe for me) is one car that cod tempt me one day! What is the running costs like?

JJ

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

Nothing so far. I have a full 2 year Factory warrenty so shouldnt be too bad.

I suspect I will need a clutch come service time and few little bits though.

Hoping for under £5k a year... who knows though!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

When mine paid out over there they didnt attempt to recover the costs from me but that was quite a few years ago now

Jim Galbally

but surely the argument is not that the level of cover drops from 3rd party to Zero when on the ring, but that the act of going to the ring would consider your main policy invalid and therefore also any 3rd party extension of it?

im sure tony said something along that lines that the insurers can deny cover for specific circumstances/exclusions and that also not disclosing information about what you intend to do could also consider a breach?


ie the moment i turn up at the nurburgring my main policy is invalid, therefore i have no cover?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

3rd party isnt an extension, thats the CORE part of the policy.

And you dont have to disclose that you will be driving your car on the roads of europe.

Guess we will know more when this one in dispute goes through though, till then its just each of us giving our interpretation, although personally I think the road traffic act is pretty clear!

JonnyBravo

As they did mine a few years back