cavlino

Chris that is very good to hear (read) I will be eager to chat with you some more about this at the next Rennsport monthly dinner.
/Ciao

FotoVeloce

That is interesting. I sold my Duc back in April, and sold off all my bikes save for 1, since I started this 'Porsche Thing'. All my buddies still ride like there is no tomorrow.. and having ridden for almost 12 years.. I figured I would be too but.. at least right now.. I'm having way more fun in the cars. Plus me kids can go with me. Cant' wait to track a PCar... bikes on the track are a real hoot!

DrJupeman

Does this new State Farm wording, and wording similar to it in other policies, suggest that even the casaul tracker need specific pit and paddock insurance to cover their car while in the paddock? It would seem to me that you might not have a claim if your car suffered damage simply sitting in the paddock, let alone on the track. I'd be curious to know what people think and if folks are worried about that.

cavlino

Good point you bring up. The wording in my exclusion is specific to driving on the track itself, not the parking lot or pit area.
At one event I was at this year there was an accident in the pit area. A drive/car was in a hurry to get to staging so they just backed out of their spot without looking. They ended up bumping into a very nice BMW track car. The person who caused the damage tried to claim they did not have track insurance on their car. The BMW owner was wise enough (a women by the way) to say, well you have insurance for the pickup you are driving that hauls your track car. The Porsche driver had to surrender their car insurance information to the BMW driver. I for one was glad the BMW driver persisted. They were not at fault at all and their BMW was in mint condition.

DanS911

Just got my new policy from Liberty Mutual. The exclusions read very specificly in each section (yes I read the whole dam thing):
....any vehicle located inside a facility designed for racing, for the purpose of:

a. competing in; or
b. practicing or preparing for;

any prearranged or organized racing or speed contest.

jimculp

A DE is none of the above.

DanS911

Correct.......that is my point

TD in DC

Sorry to burst your bubble, but read the language more carefully.

While it is true that a DE is not held for the purpose of competing in, practicing for, or preparing for a race, they are always conducted at racetracks, which unquestionably were designed for racing.

The policy says that it does not cover vehicles LOCATED WITHIN a facility designed for racing.

So, if anyone wads up their car at a DE while on the property of the racetrack, even if it is their street car that just gets hit in the paddock and they are not a registered DE participant, the damage would not be covered under this policy. This provision is, from the insurance company's perspective, very clever, because is focuses solely on location rather than activity. Location, location, location

Ironically, they would be covered (or more accurately stated, would not be excluded under this provision) if they instead wadded up their car just off the grounds of the racetrack.

Before anybody gets any bright ideas, remember that insurance fraud is a felony in many states . . .

Of course, a good lawyer would argue about what the meaning of "facility" is and whether all parts of the property of the racetrack were designed for racing, preparing for racing, etc . . .

chancecasey

Yeah I think that State Farm paragraph was pretty clear also. My policy currently has the following, so I think, at least for now, I'm in good shape:

...resulting from any pre-arranged or organized
racing, speed or demolition contest, stunting
activity, or in practice or preparation for any
such contest or activity

jimculp

TD in DC,

You can't separate the sentence into it's constituent parts. The phrase is:
"....any vehicle located inside a facility designed for racing, for the purpose of:" and "for the purpose of" is the crucial part. Otherwise, you could have a support vehicle that gets backed into inside the track and it would'nt be covered by insurance.

Jim

DanS911

Now we get to the good stuff.........I vote with Jim!!

The vehicle is located inside the facility but not for the purpose of

It isn't talking about the purpose of the facility

DrJupeman

FYI, Liberty Mutual covered me for a DE-incident based on that exact wording - but it wasn't easy or instantaneous!

TD in DC

Well, I will keep an open mind but it is hard to tell the way you cut out only part of the sentence. Put in the whole provision so I can see it in context. Keep in mind that I want you to be right, so don't take my skepticism the wrong way.

And Charlie, you can get the companies to pay even when they arguably don't "have" to. All you have to do is make them think it is more expensive not to pay than it would be just to pay.

DrJupeman

It is quite possible that was their decision, though we did avoid court... I'm still a Liberty Mutual customer, too. My rates went up for an "at fault incident" (fair), but ironically they applied the increase to my Ford Excursion and not the Porsche.

TD in DC

As I said, I have a completely open mind. Just as no decent doctor would come to a final diagnosis merely by talking to a patient over the phone, no decent attorney would come to a final decision by looking at a single, partial sentence.