Nationwide Ins. Denial After Driver's Ed Crash
11-07-2002, 06:57 PM
#16
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Selden, NY
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Vin,
Long time no see! How are you?
--
Hi Barry. I agree, but when I put my claim in to the Hartford I was 100% honest. Per JC's comment above, although it sounds funny, I told them it was at Lime Rock Park on the downhill turn.
--
That's a good one. I wonder if they were able to find it on a map!
I'm glad you got paid, but in the end, I wonder if it's worth it.
Barry
Long time no see! How are you?
--
Hi Barry. I agree, but when I put my claim in to the Hartford I was 100% honest. Per JC's comment above, although it sounds funny, I told them it was at Lime Rock Park on the downhill turn.
--
That's a good one. I wonder if they were able to find it on a map!
I'm glad you got paid, but in the end, I wonder if it's worth it.
Barry
11-07-2002, 08:55 PM
#17
Addict
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: CT
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't thinking about this when I wrote my earlier post, but I can cite an instance where an insurance company was spared a considerable claim specifically as a result of its insured being a DE participant.
Some time ago I was in my daily driver (Mercedes) with my wife in the passenger seat. We were going maybe 50 mph and were severely cut off by a van. The only way to avoid a collision was to instantly turn sharply left while trail braking at the tires' limits, across the two opposite lanes and into a driveway. My response was automatic, and there is absolutely no way I would have avoided a collision were it not for my track driving experience. My wife (who has a way of being extraordinarily clued in), just calmly said "nice driving" while the tires were still squealing away.
My insurer, and the van's insurer, avoided a hefty property damage claim on that one due to DE participation, and quite possible avoided a far more costly personal injury claim.
I don't presume that insurance companies take into account the accidents which are surely avoided as a result of folks becoming better street drivers because of on-track drivers' ed. Maybe they do, dunno. But I do believe participation by covered drivers in DE events has a legitimate upside as well as a downside for carriers, so I wouldn't feel too awful bad about putting in a claim for DE damage.
Matt
Some time ago I was in my daily driver (Mercedes) with my wife in the passenger seat. We were going maybe 50 mph and were severely cut off by a van. The only way to avoid a collision was to instantly turn sharply left while trail braking at the tires' limits, across the two opposite lanes and into a driveway. My response was automatic, and there is absolutely no way I would have avoided a collision were it not for my track driving experience. My wife (who has a way of being extraordinarily clued in), just calmly said "nice driving" while the tires were still squealing away.
My insurer, and the van's insurer, avoided a hefty property damage claim on that one due to DE participation, and quite possible avoided a far more costly personal injury claim.
I don't presume that insurance companies take into account the accidents which are surely avoided as a result of folks becoming better street drivers because of on-track drivers' ed. Maybe they do, dunno. But I do believe participation by covered drivers in DE events has a legitimate upside as well as a downside for carriers, so I wouldn't feel too awful bad about putting in a claim for DE damage.
Matt
11-07-2002, 08:58 PM
#18
Burning Brakes
Barry,
I hear what you are saying, but generally think that your perception of track driving is misguided.
First of all, I guess that I don't really see the inherent dangers of track driving, simply because you are on the track. Not that driving a fast car near the limits of your abilities can't be dangerous. I just think that the dangers of street driving are just as severe, and in some cases maybe more so.
The reality is that people are going to drive fast, slow, bad, good, wrecklessly, or carefully independant of whether they are on the track or not. Accidents will happen to all of these people.
And people, like us, are going to drive fast cars, like Porsches, that are capable of exceeding the limits of our abilities. And when accidents happen, regardless of how or where they happen, we ALL pay for it.
Certainly there are risks with driving fast on the track, but I'm NOT convinced that they are more severe than the risks of driving fast on the street. And are any of us Porsche owners trying to tell me that we don't ever drive our cars fast? Of course we do! And we already pay for each others accidents that occur because of this.
Personally, I would prefer that people do their fast driving on the track instead of the street because the conditions are more controlled and the risk of harming others is significantly reduced. As a result, the costs of these accidents are overall, probably less.
Track drivers are also required to use advanced safety measures, such as helmets, roll bars, and harnesses. These devices minimize the cost of the accidents. And I wouldn't be surprised that track drivers are more willing to use their seat belts on the street than non-track drivers.
Finally, it is my opinion that drivers who take their cars on the track are generally FAR BETTER drivers than those that don't (but not always, of course). As a result, I would argue that track drivers are far more capable of avoiding accidents on the street than those who don't practice their skills on the track.
These are merely my opinions, and anyone who has an accident - whether on the street or track - should be considered at a higher risk of having another one. THEIR premiums should reflect this risk, not ours. In conclusion, I think that insurance companies might be wise to actually ENCOURAGE driver training on race tracks because of the following:
1. It is safer to drive fast on the track than on the street (and we ALL drive fast sometimes).
2. People would be less likely to drive fast on the street if they had the option of driving fast on the track (it works for me!).
3. Driver training leads to better drivers on the street.
Regardless, we should all drive within our limits whether on the street, or on the track.
Take care.
Erick <img src="graemlins/a_smil17.gif" border="0" alt="[blabla]" />
I hear what you are saying, but generally think that your perception of track driving is misguided.
First of all, I guess that I don't really see the inherent dangers of track driving, simply because you are on the track. Not that driving a fast car near the limits of your abilities can't be dangerous. I just think that the dangers of street driving are just as severe, and in some cases maybe more so.
The reality is that people are going to drive fast, slow, bad, good, wrecklessly, or carefully independant of whether they are on the track or not. Accidents will happen to all of these people.
And people, like us, are going to drive fast cars, like Porsches, that are capable of exceeding the limits of our abilities. And when accidents happen, regardless of how or where they happen, we ALL pay for it.
Certainly there are risks with driving fast on the track, but I'm NOT convinced that they are more severe than the risks of driving fast on the street. And are any of us Porsche owners trying to tell me that we don't ever drive our cars fast? Of course we do! And we already pay for each others accidents that occur because of this.
Personally, I would prefer that people do their fast driving on the track instead of the street because the conditions are more controlled and the risk of harming others is significantly reduced. As a result, the costs of these accidents are overall, probably less.
Track drivers are also required to use advanced safety measures, such as helmets, roll bars, and harnesses. These devices minimize the cost of the accidents. And I wouldn't be surprised that track drivers are more willing to use their seat belts on the street than non-track drivers.
Finally, it is my opinion that drivers who take their cars on the track are generally FAR BETTER drivers than those that don't (but not always, of course). As a result, I would argue that track drivers are far more capable of avoiding accidents on the street than those who don't practice their skills on the track.
These are merely my opinions, and anyone who has an accident - whether on the street or track - should be considered at a higher risk of having another one. THEIR premiums should reflect this risk, not ours. In conclusion, I think that insurance companies might be wise to actually ENCOURAGE driver training on race tracks because of the following:
1. It is safer to drive fast on the track than on the street (and we ALL drive fast sometimes).
2. People would be less likely to drive fast on the street if they had the option of driving fast on the track (it works for me!).
3. Driver training leads to better drivers on the street.
Regardless, we should all drive within our limits whether on the street, or on the track.
Take care.
Erick <img src="graemlins/a_smil17.gif" border="0" alt="[blabla]" />
11-07-2002, 10:37 PM
#19
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: bay area
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest everyone who thinks they are covered re-read all of the language in their policy, especially the stuff on the loose sheets typically falling out of the booklet. All insurance companies are adding exclusions and tightening the language on the ones they already had, so it may be that you were covered in the past but aren't any more. Here is what I found on a loose sheet sent with my September renewal:
[quote]
Under part F, the Racing provision is deleted and replaced by the following:
There is no coverage under this policy while your covered auto is:
1. Involved in an organized or impromptu race including, but not limited to the auto's:
a) preparation for the race
b) participation in the race
c) practicing or qualifying for a race
A race means any competition for speed, time or endurance whether against another competitor or against time.
2. Being used at a:
a) racing facility; or
b) facility or roadway temporarily designated for speed, time, racing, or performance driving events, This includes, but is not limited to, the use of of your covered auto at a performance driving school, an above legal speed rally, or a closed road rally.
<hr></blockquote>
The best advice to your father-in-law is given many times above-get a lawyer, be prepared for a fight, and keep good records of every correspondence with anyone at the Nationwide. Good luck!
[quote]
Under part F, the Racing provision is deleted and replaced by the following:
There is no coverage under this policy while your covered auto is:
1. Involved in an organized or impromptu race including, but not limited to the auto's:
a) preparation for the race
b) participation in the race
c) practicing or qualifying for a race
A race means any competition for speed, time or endurance whether against another competitor or against time.
2. Being used at a:
a) racing facility; or
b) facility or roadway temporarily designated for speed, time, racing, or performance driving events, This includes, but is not limited to, the use of of your covered auto at a performance driving school, an above legal speed rally, or a closed road rally.
<hr></blockquote>
The best advice to your father-in-law is given many times above-get a lawyer, be prepared for a fight, and keep good records of every correspondence with anyone at the Nationwide. Good luck!
11-07-2002, 10:48 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
[quote]Originally posted by RSAErick:
<strong>Barry,
I hear what you are saying, but generally think that your perception of track driving is misguided.
First of all, I guess that I don't really see the inherent dangers of track driving, simply because you are on the track.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't be serious. Do you really think that bent sheetmetal per car miles travelled on the track is anywhere near what it is on the streets?
Sure, everyone would like their activities on the racetrack to be covered by their ordinary insurance, and people say, with tongue-in-cheek, "it's only Drivers Education". But ultimately, whatever the written exclusions, many a reasonable judge may well say that ordinary insurance was never intended to cover driving a car on a racetrack.
<strong>Barry,
I hear what you are saying, but generally think that your perception of track driving is misguided.
First of all, I guess that I don't really see the inherent dangers of track driving, simply because you are on the track.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can't be serious. Do you really think that bent sheetmetal per car miles travelled on the track is anywhere near what it is on the streets?
Sure, everyone would like their activities on the racetrack to be covered by their ordinary insurance, and people say, with tongue-in-cheek, "it's only Drivers Education". But ultimately, whatever the written exclusions, many a reasonable judge may well say that ordinary insurance was never intended to cover driving a car on a racetrack.
11-07-2002, 11:38 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
[quote]Originally posted by pig4bill:
<strong>
You can't be serious. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I'm serious. I don't believe that track driving is dangerous by simply being on the track. Sure it can be dangerous - as I stated immediately following your quote of me. However, the level of danger is what you make of it. And my belief is that it is JUST as dangerous, if not more so, on the street. People will drive at the limits of their abilities, regardless of whether it is on the street or on the track. Where would you rather they drive fast?
<strong>
You can't be serious. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I'm serious. I don't believe that track driving is dangerous by simply being on the track. Sure it can be dangerous - as I stated immediately following your quote of me. However, the level of danger is what you make of it. And my belief is that it is JUST as dangerous, if not more so, on the street. People will drive at the limits of their abilities, regardless of whether it is on the street or on the track. Where would you rather they drive fast?
11-08-2002, 02:52 AM
#22
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: bay area
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RSAerik said
[quote]Yes, I'm serious. I don't believe that track driving is dangerous by simply being on the track. <hr></blockquote>
Maybe not for you, but actuarily it certainly seems that it must be for everyone else. The cost of insurance JUST to cover me for physical damage in DE events 5 times a year is about the same as I am paying for all coverages to drive the car on the street all year long. You do the math...
[quote]Yes, I'm serious. I don't believe that track driving is dangerous by simply being on the track. <hr></blockquote>
Maybe not for you, but actuarily it certainly seems that it must be for everyone else. The cost of insurance JUST to cover me for physical damage in DE events 5 times a year is about the same as I am paying for all coverages to drive the car on the street all year long. You do the math...
11-08-2002, 03:05 AM
#23
Burning Brakes
[quote]Originally posted by JayM:
<strong>RSAerik said
Maybe not for you, but actuarily it certainly seems that it must be for everyone else. The cost of insurance JUST to cover me for physical damage in DE events 5 times a year is about the same as I am paying for all coverages to drive the car on the street all year long. You do the math...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cost of your coverage as determined by actuaries is not a function of you simply being on the track. The actuarial data comes from the behavior that people exhibit while choosing to exceed the limits of their ability.
What insurance company do you purchase track insurance through? I would certainly be willing to purchase track insurance if it was available. Unfortunately, I don't think that many insurance companies offer it. It would be a worthwhile investment.
<strong>RSAerik said
Maybe not for you, but actuarily it certainly seems that it must be for everyone else. The cost of insurance JUST to cover me for physical damage in DE events 5 times a year is about the same as I am paying for all coverages to drive the car on the street all year long. You do the math...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The cost of your coverage as determined by actuaries is not a function of you simply being on the track. The actuarial data comes from the behavior that people exhibit while choosing to exceed the limits of their ability.
What insurance company do you purchase track insurance through? I would certainly be willing to purchase track insurance if it was available. Unfortunately, I don't think that many insurance companies offer it. It would be a worthwhile investment.
11-08-2002, 03:45 AM
#24
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: bay area
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The qoute I have is from American Collectors Insurance in Cherry Hill, NJ (through a local broker). I am done with track events this year, but will probably sign up next year.
11-08-2002, 02:52 PM
#26
2nd Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the replies. I guess I should have been clearer. I AM a lawyer, and have had to sue Nationwide; the matter is currently being litigated to death by them. A few points:
1. The insurance company is and can be bound by the statements of their agent, particularly if he writes their policies exclusively.
2. The agent has also been sued for negligence, in that he told my father-in-law he'd be covered when in fact Nationwide claims he was not.
3. The language they are relying on is so vague - notify us of anything that may increase your risk of harm -- that it is almost meaningless. Lots of things increase harm under the policy.
4. While DE may be riskier than driving on the street, I doubt it is riskier than a lot of things that nationwide would have paid on, for example, getting into a wreck driving 90 mph on the highway.
5. While the short-term risk may be higher on the track, the long-term risk would actually be decreased, since someone who does DE picks up better driving skills overall.
6. Why shouldn't Nationwide be held to their contract? They could have excluded racing or race-type events, or anything else they wanted.
7. The insurance company strategy here is obvious: make the driver choose between spending thousands on attorney fees or accepting their denial. Luckily for my father-in-law (and unluckily for me) he is family, so I am not charging him.
8. Again, he told his agent what he was doing beforehand. Nationwide should not be allowed to pretend that he didn't, and exclude coverage.
9. Finally, PCA should be a little more aggressive in terms of telling its members that they might not be covered under their policies, and should buy supplemental insurance.
Thanks for all your input.
1. The insurance company is and can be bound by the statements of their agent, particularly if he writes their policies exclusively.
2. The agent has also been sued for negligence, in that he told my father-in-law he'd be covered when in fact Nationwide claims he was not.
3. The language they are relying on is so vague - notify us of anything that may increase your risk of harm -- that it is almost meaningless. Lots of things increase harm under the policy.
4. While DE may be riskier than driving on the street, I doubt it is riskier than a lot of things that nationwide would have paid on, for example, getting into a wreck driving 90 mph on the highway.
5. While the short-term risk may be higher on the track, the long-term risk would actually be decreased, since someone who does DE picks up better driving skills overall.
6. Why shouldn't Nationwide be held to their contract? They could have excluded racing or race-type events, or anything else they wanted.
7. The insurance company strategy here is obvious: make the driver choose between spending thousands on attorney fees or accepting their denial. Luckily for my father-in-law (and unluckily for me) he is family, so I am not charging him.
8. Again, he told his agent what he was doing beforehand. Nationwide should not be allowed to pretend that he didn't, and exclude coverage.
9. Finally, PCA should be a little more aggressive in terms of telling its members that they might not be covered under their policies, and should buy supplemental insurance.
Thanks for all your input.
11-08-2002, 05:26 PM
#27
Pro
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by Markf:
<strong>3. The language they are relying on is so vague - notify us of anything that may increase your risk of harm -- that it is almost meaningless. Lots of things increase harm under the policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like, if you have a policy with Nationwide, you should notify them if you intend to drive on Prom night!! <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> I was hit by a 16 year old driver, heading out for Prom night almost 6 years ago and was left with an injury, spinal injury. I'm about to pay for my own operation in 2 weeks because "STATE FARM" claims I was injured before the accident due to records that I went to a chiropractor. Oh yeah, if you frequent a chiropractor now, don't expect to be covered for any future back injuries!!
Of course this is all tongue in cheek but sadly, it's all TRUE!
Dylan.
<strong>3. The language they are relying on is so vague - notify us of anything that may increase your risk of harm -- that it is almost meaningless. Lots of things increase harm under the policy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like, if you have a policy with Nationwide, you should notify them if you intend to drive on Prom night!! <img src="graemlins/c.gif" border="0" alt="[ouch]" /> I was hit by a 16 year old driver, heading out for Prom night almost 6 years ago and was left with an injury, spinal injury. I'm about to pay for my own operation in 2 weeks because "STATE FARM" claims I was injured before the accident due to records that I went to a chiropractor. Oh yeah, if you frequent a chiropractor now, don't expect to be covered for any future back injuries!!
Of course this is all tongue in cheek but sadly, it's all TRUE!
Dylan.
11-08-2002, 06:37 PM
#28
Three Wheelin'
Unfortunately the insurance industry is sprialing out of control. A couple thoughts....
The bulk of the payouts by insurance companies are liability losses. These are the $500k, $1m lawsuits that they have been hurt on so much. The insurance companies should work on reducing these and inappropriate litigation as these are their real problems.
My insurance policy, all 44 pages, does not have any mention of racing or competition. I have elected to maintain this policy due to this even though I could save money going elsewhere. The policy is quite explicit in what I cannot do. I cannot use the vehicle as a taxi cab, or for work on a farm.
I have to check on the 'inform them of any increased risk factors'. I could definitely have a blast with that. Start sending them certified letters every time it rains, is driven at night, I have a cold, work late, eat lunch while driving, etc. Maybe everytime I drive into NYC (My truck, not the Porsche). Any time I drive on the road with all of the idiots that are out there. I have joked a few times with my carrier that they should give a discount for my role cage!
Is the risk of vehicle damage higher on the track than on the street... Yes
Is the amount of a serious claim more on the track... No (less liability issues)
Is the increased risk balanced by the improved skill.. more than Yes
Do drivers take risks in places other than the track and expect to be covered... Yes
Is the track a safer place to do 90 than the street... Yes
Should they provide coverage... Yes
I would not mind if they exclude it on my regular policy and offer a rider for it. I'd pay an extra $1000 per year easily for 100% coverage during ALL track events (races inclusive). I'd probably be willing to pay alot more. Even a $5000 or $10,000 deductible would be ok. All I want to protect against is a catastrophic loss.
My .32 cents!
The bulk of the payouts by insurance companies are liability losses. These are the $500k, $1m lawsuits that they have been hurt on so much. The insurance companies should work on reducing these and inappropriate litigation as these are their real problems.
My insurance policy, all 44 pages, does not have any mention of racing or competition. I have elected to maintain this policy due to this even though I could save money going elsewhere. The policy is quite explicit in what I cannot do. I cannot use the vehicle as a taxi cab, or for work on a farm.
I have to check on the 'inform them of any increased risk factors'. I could definitely have a blast with that. Start sending them certified letters every time it rains, is driven at night, I have a cold, work late, eat lunch while driving, etc. Maybe everytime I drive into NYC (My truck, not the Porsche). Any time I drive on the road with all of the idiots that are out there. I have joked a few times with my carrier that they should give a discount for my role cage!
Is the risk of vehicle damage higher on the track than on the street... Yes
Is the amount of a serious claim more on the track... No (less liability issues)
Is the increased risk balanced by the improved skill.. more than Yes
Do drivers take risks in places other than the track and expect to be covered... Yes
Is the track a safer place to do 90 than the street... Yes
Should they provide coverage... Yes
I would not mind if they exclude it on my regular policy and offer a rider for it. I'd pay an extra $1000 per year easily for 100% coverage during ALL track events (races inclusive). I'd probably be willing to pay alot more. Even a $5000 or $10,000 deductible would be ok. All I want to protect against is a catastrophic loss.
My .32 cents!
