Mannings Nurburgring 3rd Party Cover
Discussion
Solicitor's website said:
Your insurance policy will probably contain a clause to the effect that if the insurer is obligated to meet a claim it otherwise would not pay then the insurer is entitled to reclaim the settlement from the policyholder.
i.e they will pay out, but they will then sue you for it back.i.e you're not covered, to all intents and purposes
i.e if you kill someone or wreck someone's GT3RS, then expect to lose your house
SAGRIFF said:
http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurburgring_insura...
"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.
In August 2010 the Financial Ombudsman Service made a final decision regarding a case concerning the Nurburgring Nordschleife. The Ombudsman ruled that the Nordschleife is a one way toll circuit with all the characteristics of a 'prepared course'. The insured's policy excluded use on a 'prepared course'. This sort of exclusion was held to be neither unfair or unreasonable given the increased risks associated with driving in such places. The existence of road traffic laws and speed limits was said to be irrelevant as it is still a 'prepared course'. The insurer agreed to meet any third party liabilities but this did not mean that the driver was driving within the terms and conditions of his policy. The ombudsman said that UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of 3rd party only cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own-damage cover. There is no restriction on the right to exclude certain matters affecting the policyholder's own property and person. Such matters are governed by the contract of insurance entered into by both parties. Hence, the insurer can indemnify the third party (to comply with the law) without having to indemnify the driver for his own losses if they arise from an excluded event or situation.
Your insurance policy will probably contain a clause to the effect that if the insurer is obligated to meet a claim it otherwise would not pay then the insurer is entitled to reclaim the settlement from the policyholder."
"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.
In August 2010 the Financial Ombudsman Service made a final decision regarding a case concerning the Nurburgring Nordschleife. The Ombudsman ruled that the Nordschleife is a one way toll circuit with all the characteristics of a 'prepared course'. The insured's policy excluded use on a 'prepared course'. This sort of exclusion was held to be neither unfair or unreasonable given the increased risks associated with driving in such places. The existence of road traffic laws and speed limits was said to be irrelevant as it is still a 'prepared course'. The insurer agreed to meet any third party liabilities but this did not mean that the driver was driving within the terms and conditions of his policy. The ombudsman said that UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of 3rd party only cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own-damage cover. There is no restriction on the right to exclude certain matters affecting the policyholder's own property and person. Such matters are governed by the contract of insurance entered into by both parties. Hence, the insurer can indemnify the third party (to comply with the law) without having to indemnify the driver for his own losses if they arise from an excluded event or situation.
Your insurance policy will probably contain a clause to the effect that if the insurer is obligated to meet a claim it otherwise would not pay then the insurer is entitled to reclaim the settlement from the policyholder."
How can they do that? The "Ring" as in Norsdschleife is stated as a public road (all be it a "toll road").
If they try to get out of the insurance on there, basically they should prohibit all you UK guys to drive on the French (and soon Belgian motorways) too, as you have to pay toll to use them, and I can imagine there are some roads in the UK that are toll ways too.
I don't think it's legal to do so...
If they try to get out of the insurance on there, basically they should prohibit all you UK guys to drive on the French (and soon Belgian motorways) too, as you have to pay toll to use them, and I can imagine there are some roads in the UK that are toll ways too.
I don't think it's legal to do so...
PascalBuyens said:
How can they do that? The "Ring" as in Norsdschleife is stated as a public road (all be it a "toll road").
If they try to get out of the insurance on there, basically they should prohibit all you UK guys to drive on the French (and soon Belgian motorways) too, as you have to pay toll to use them, and I can imagine there are some roads in the UK that are toll ways too.
I don't think it's legal to do so...
Dream on.If they try to get out of the insurance on there, basically they should prohibit all you UK guys to drive on the French (and soon Belgian motorways) too, as you have to pay toll to use them, and I can imagine there are some roads in the UK that are toll ways too.
I don't think it's legal to do so...
The Financial Ombudsman has found that it's a prepared course. Therefore excluded.
Period.
until you're told by the insurer that the policy terms have changed then you may rely on the terms at the policy inception/renewal.
i have a porsche policy with manning and i called my broker yesterday for clarification. i'm told that underwriter Allianz is pulling out of the TF and trackday market. so, anyone who renews with manning or takes out a new policy will not be covered for TF; but their new underwriter is prepared to cover ATDO member trackdays.
by a happy coincidence, provisional dates for Destination Nurburgring trackdays were announced recently:
Wednesday April 20th 8am to 5pm
Thursday April 21st 8am to 2pm
Monday July 18th 8am - 5pm
Tuesday July 19th 8am to 5pm
i have a porsche policy with manning and i called my broker yesterday for clarification. i'm told that underwriter Allianz is pulling out of the TF and trackday market. so, anyone who renews with manning or takes out a new policy will not be covered for TF; but their new underwriter is prepared to cover ATDO member trackdays.
by a happy coincidence, provisional dates for Destination Nurburgring trackdays were announced recently:
Wednesday April 20th 8am to 5pm
Thursday April 21st 8am to 2pm
Monday July 18th 8am - 5pm
Tuesday July 19th 8am to 5pm
bartesque said:
I have just received my renewal documents from Mannings with insured with Allianz there is no mention of removal of cover for track days or any restriction on the ring
As there is no mention of it in my document it must be covered should it not
Lo for the words "prepared course" and the exclusion for that, as per the stuff below about the FOS case.As there is no mention of it in my document it must be covered should it not
Unless it SPECIFICALLY SAYS you are covered for the Ring, assume you are NOT INSURED for the Ring.
Sorry.
Soovy said:
Lo for the words "prepared course" and the exclusion for that, as per the stuff below about the FOS case.
Unless it SPECIFICALLY SAYS you are covered for the Ring, assume you are NOT INSURED for the Ring.
Sorry.
I have had a look through again and still cannot see anything not wishing to argue but as they are very specific in what they have excluded therefore Unless it specifically says I am not covered for the Ring, then it would be interesting to see hao they could legally not insure for the Ring.Unless it SPECIFICALLY SAYS you are covered for the Ring, assume you are NOT INSURED for the Ring.
Sorry.
I note the comments about insurance ombudsman ruling but my understanding of insurance albeit property related is that they would struggle to argue against it.
bartesque said:
I have had a look through again and still cannot see anything not wishing to argue but as they are very specific in what they have excluded therefore Unless it specifically says I am not covered for the Ring, then it would be interesting to see hao they could legally not insure for the Ring.
I note the comments about insurance ombudsman ruling but my understanding of insurance albeit property related is that they would struggle to argue against it.
I hope you've got 100 grand sat waiting to fight it.I note the comments about insurance ombudsman ruling but my understanding of insurance albeit property related is that they would struggle to argue against it.
They will tell you to poke your claim, you have to sue them to make them pay out. Do you have the money to fund this?
Post the documents here and we'll take a look.
Fact is that if you have a claim involving the Ring they MIGHT pay out for the third party claim and sue you for the whole lot. Plus costs. Tjis means your house.
Sorry but I'm afraid anyone (including me) who drives the Ring must assume that they are not insured for their own or any third party losses. Even if your insurer pays out for third party claims. then they will come after YOU for it.
Bad news, but that's it. Sorry. Especially in light of the FOS adjudication referenced above.
The only way you can be confident in being insured is if you have a signed indemnity letter from your insurer, stating that they indemnify you for claims on the Ring.
You won't get one.
Edited by Soovy on Monday 7th February 20:36
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff