Does anyone have experience with Progressive actually paying or actually denying a claim for an on-track incident (any vehicle)? If so please let me know, PM me if you prefer. Please also specify what state you are in - thanks very much.

Before you ask - my car is fine and I do not have Progressive.

 

They paid mine in CA, but when time to renew, the policy language was changed to be VERY clear that it would not be covered again.

 

You should really look into TRACK INSURANCE. Having an incident on the track with track insurance will NOT go on your record with the insurance companies. Further, you are ignoring the fact that if you think that your ins company isn't going to either (a) drop you/not renew; or (b) raise you rates significantly.

Not sure how it is in VA, but in NC there is state law that mandates points on your record that requires a percentage increase in your rates for a set period of time.

FYI.....I just signed up recently with Chris over at Prosure for on-track coverage. Small price to pay for the peace of mind of wadding up a near $100K on the track. Policy is based on a percentage of your value. Knowing your car I would venture your policy would be roughly $1K. I forget what the deduct breakdowns were but they were very reasonable as well.

 

You should read your policy. Most policies now state that any incident on a race track is not covered. That is why I have a cheap track car (~$20K) and self insure.

 

Progressive paid my claim. My policy has no exclusion for any track use. Progressive verified that no racing was involved (although there is no exclusion for racing). I then received a non-renewal notice, stating as the reason: "The commercial use [of the car] is unacceptable." I called to inquire how in the world Progressive concluded that I was using my car in a commercial fashion, which I obviously I was not. As expected, this reason was a blatant pretext to provide cover for the real reason -- Progressive will not underwrite cars that are used for racing. Despite the clear confirmation from me and from the track facility that no racing was involved, the claims rep apparently put into the notes that racing was involved. I contacted the rep's supervisor and she quickly corrected the record after I made clear what the consequences would be for the company for creating fraudulent records. Less than two weeks later, I received my renewal offer, with the semi-annual premium going up by about $50. I will need to look whether the policy terms have changed.

One of the maddening things about shopping other insurers is that none of them is willing to show you the actual policy language before the policy is bought. This makes it impossible to see if the policy contains exclusions for track use.

 

I think it is a bit ridiculous that people think they should be covered while on a race track with a street policy. This is especially true if you are in any group other than Yellow or green. I know it is DE but, is that really what insurance is for? I think not. I'm not picking on anyone in particular on this forum, but if you participate in a high risk activity then your rates should be significantly higher than those that merely commute to work. That is why there are supplemental track policies.

If you can't afford to self insure, then you shouldn't play.

Stepping off soapbox now.

 

my totalled M3 was covered in full with Progressive full coverage policy, my plan was not cancelled, and I have not experienced any rate increase.

this was in Oklahoma and the non-racing incident occurred 18 months ago. i now have a track only car that is not covered whatsoever.

 

I agree on this point.

However, I've been trying to get a response from Chris at Prosure but he's not returning my calls or emails. Did you sign up with him before he switched carriers? Not sure what's up over there. I know it's basically a one man outfit but flakey, non responsive communication always gives me pause.

 

What is ridiculous is an insurer's attempt to deny a claim on the basis that the incident occurred on a track when the policy does not exclude such use. The insurer is the one who writes the policy, which is the contract between it and the insured. If the insurer does not see fit to exclude track use -- either through inadvertence or, more likely, through a considered decision to enhance the marketing of its policy -- then there is no reason for the insured to be bashful about submitting a claim.

 

It's not the insurer that writes it into the policy specifically. There is state law that varies by state on what CAN and CANNOT be worded in the policy. Times are a changing though b/c the ins companies are now realizing that there is a large number of claims coming in with the gaining popularity of track events.

Sure, you can roll the dice with the insurance company and risk:
1. the claim being denied
2. rates increasing substsantially
3. dropped
4. non-renewal

or you can do the proper thing and either:
1. self-insure
2. insure with a track policy

I mean seriously, do you honestly think the insurance companies write policies thinking that you are going to break the speed limit (well over triple digit speeds) in a confined space with up to 50 other cars at one time not as a professional and be fine with that? Try calling up your insurance company a a priori and to renewal and tell them EXACTLY what I just stated above and see if they don't write an exclusion or even worse deny renewal.

Before and after he switched companies I had been in contact with Chris on several occasions and he has ALWAYS returned my email or phone call almost immediately.

 

There is no Virginia statute adding a track use exclusion into insurance policies applicable in Virginia. More often, state insurance laws specify what insurers must cover, not what they may not, although the latter type of statute does exist.

Even a quick read of any insurance policy will reveal exclusions for a wide variety of far-fetched uses. Notably, most policies do not exclude things like being completely stupid and driving 150 mph around a tight turn on a wet mountain road, or racing another car at 180 mph on a highway. The point is that some insurers do exclude track use by writing an exclusion to cover it, while others do not. Even insurers whose policies do not contain such exclusions will tell you that their policies will not cover track use because that is the knee-jerk reaction of any insurance sales rep. They have no idea what goes on in a HPDE. However, the controlling fact is what the policy says, not what a sales rep thinks. I agree that more and more insurers are including track exclusions, as is their prerogative. Until mine does, I will not hesitate to make a claim based on coverage for which I have been paying.

 

So now that you already have at least one track claim (I assume they are fully aware it was a track claim) do you honestly believe you can continue to fly with them when yo claim the second one? That's what they like to call "high risk".

 

They know exactly what happened. If they choose to not renew the policy due to a second claim (which I will do my best to avoid), I will find other insurance. It may well be a combination of a regular policy with a track exclusion and a track-specific policy. Or it may be another regular policy without a track exclusion.

Now, I am out the door to VIR for the weekend. Hopefully, this discussion did not jinx me into another incident.

 

I agree. If there is no instructor, instruction, or classroom, what exactly is the education part of Driver Education that distinguishes it from playing at the racetrack? I don't think playing racecars was any part of the intent of standard insurance policies.

On the other hand, I found that a "pleasure use only car" has lower rates than a "commute to work" car. Hmmm, now where can I drive my pleasure use car to derive a little pleasure (as the policy implies is appropriate) ..... I wonder?

 

My 944 (both actually) is registered with Progressive as a 'pleasure vehicle' as well. No actual restriction on daily driving, I can drive it to work, but I'm not supposed to everyday. I keep the insurance on it because I drive it to the track and every once in a while for, well, pleasure.

That said, if I smashed it at the track, they'd never know. I'd just cancel the insurance and be done with it. That's why I drive what I drive at the track. Cheap, good fun. I flogged the crap out of my car today at PIR, best lap times ever. Thanks Progressive!

Fun side note: The VIN alone evidently does not tell the insurance company that my second 944 is a Turbo. They show up the same on the papers.