Vetch

I noticed that one of the track day insurers is offering policies to protect from "3rd party" liability. When I asked who a 3rd party might be, the answers included flaggers, tow truck drivers, and pit-out personnel. An incident was cited where a driver didn't install a tow hook completely and it came off the car while being towed and somehow hurt the tow truck driver. I don't know if this was theoretical or if it actually happened. However, it was said to have happened that a pit-out worker went unconscious while standing near a DE car with no exhaust cats. This person fell, hit their head, and later tried to sue the driver.

Wondering if the track staff is allowed to sue DE drivers, I politely contacted four tracks and none have replied after several follow ups. We all sign an agreement not to sue each other, but I guess state legislation doesn't allow employers to ask their staff to sign an agreement to not sue their customers or guests.

Do we really need insurance for this?

ExMB

Its the US. Probably the most sue happy country on the planet. IMHO no piece of paper will prevent you from getting a sue attempt if they think they can get away with it.

Veloce Raptor

We have 5% of the world's population but 25% of the world's lawyers.
Do the math...

sugarwood

Sounds like an upsell to me.
Do you want the extended warranty with that?

fatbillybob

You can't buy liability as an individual. You need to be listed as an "additional insured" under the track organizer's policy. Look at the SCCA declarations listed in the SCCA GCR. If that is not detailed enough you can request a copy of the policy if you are a member. That is one reason I am very careful what organization I race with.

LuigiVampa

Buy an umbrella policy and sleep well knowing that stuff like this, and other stuff like this, will most likely be covered. Just make sure that any carve out is for "timed events" (ie - racing) as opposed to driver's education.

Also, there is a concept of assuming the risk. If a flagger gets hurt by flying rubber or a crash there is an argument that they assumed the risk.

All the being said, remember that anyone can sue you for anything at anytime. Winning the case? Now that's a different story.

Just remember, behind every "evil lawyer" is a greedy client. Its the same argument for getting rid of guns. Lawyers don't sue people - people sue people using lawyers. So let's ban stupid people instead of lawyers.

sbelles

Half the commercials that I see these days are either telling me which drugs I should take or which drug maker I should sue. It was a mistake to let either of them advertise. ;-)

LuigiVampa

I totally agree. Up until about the 1970s lawyers were not allowed to advertise at all. Letting drug companies advertise is even more horrific in my opinion but I do love hearing commercials where one of the side effects are "brown staining". Always makes me giggle.

fatbillybob

For racing, at least, umbrella and excess personal liabilty coverage don't do anything for you. If there is a policy without "racing" as an exclusion let me know.

ExMB

Says the lawyer.

But yet there are so many lawyers (ambulance chasers) advertising, looking for stupid people, to support their own lifestyle under the guise of helping them.

Lets take it one step further; diminish both by requiring that the loser has to cover costs for both sides. Not sure that is possible with the current system of lobbyists.

DTMiller

+1. For an umbrella policy to kick in you need an underlying policy with coverage that is exhausted. If you don't have primary coverage the umbrella doesn't provide anything over top of the nothing coverage below it.

LuigiVampa

True.

There is definitely a seedy side to the law but every facet of society has corrupt people trying to earn a buck off of other people. Lawyers are just one of many but perhaps they get the most notoriety. I'm with everyone else - I hate the ambulance chasers because they besmirch what I feel is an otherwise noble profession.

LuigiVampa

That is not necessarily true at all. An umbrella policy can provide primary coverage for certain events which are specific exclusions from other policies.

The problem with conversations like these is that we talk as if every policy was written by the same company in the same are of the country. They aren't so there are variances and situations in which you can be correct.

DTMiller

That's fair. It requires a very explicit conversation with your agent to determine if you have coverage.

The existence of a basic umbrella policy very well might not provide any coverage. My umbrella policy only provides excess coverage for risks covered by other policies that are disclosed to the company. In other words, if I have a track day policy that provides coverage for my muffler hitting a corner worker in the face (I don't) I'd have excess coverage under the umbrella only if I notified the company of the existence of the track day policy. That notification also triggers them repricing the umbrella policy, as I found out when I added an STP policy from Hagerty. That act raised my umbrella policy cost by a few dollars.

Clif notes: you're gonna have to have a conversation with your agent about your policy.

Vetch

+1
Just spoke to my agent. An umbrella only serves to extend the dollar limits of coverage. It does not add other coverage types. And since my policy, like most, does not cover any activity on a surface where racing or high speed driving is involved, the umbrella is worthless if I get sued by a track worker.

It's a bit annoying that no track would answer the question regarding whether their staff are permitted to sue DE drivers. Even an ambiguous CYA answer would have been nice from them, but I guess not replying is a form of CYA.