Targatoo

Yes, this has been discussed on Rennlist:

https://rennlist.com/forums/rennlist...the-track.html

https://rennlist.com/forums/rennlist...r-de-days.html

I haven't seen anyone post the link to the Ontario Automobile Policy (O.A.P 1), which is the mandated standard for coverage. All insurance companies have to follow the definitions in this policy. For our interest the wording is:

We won't pay for loss or damage caused in an incident:
• if you use or permit the automobile to be used in a race or speed test, or for illegal activity;
• if you drive the automobile while not authorized by law; and
• if another person, with your permission, drives or operates the automobile under any of these conditions.

I didn't know that this standard existed until someone mentioned it at the local PCA dinner. Meetings are useful, just not at my work!

I'm not a lawyer and I still intend to drive with all the precaution on the track that I do on the road - try my very best to avoid a collision at all times - but I can sleep at night with this little bit of knowledge.

Drive safe,
Targatoo

Imo000

The definition of a race and speed test is the key here. How is it defined in the OAP?

jumper5836

timed device is where they can get you.
Guys with data loggers and camcorders posting up video in the net with laps being timed. One guy at the track timing himself and you can be screwed.

shizzle

There actually is court precedent in Ontario where insurance companies must cover HPDE events. In Carnell v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2011 ONCA 313, the plaintiff damaged his car during an HPDE event at Mosport. Initially, Aviva cancelled the plaintiff's insurance and refused to cover the damages. Without going through all the legal details, the case made its way to the Ontario Court of Appeal, where the court found that the insurance company was required to provide coverage. Here is the link to the case: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc...11onca313.html


APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We do not accept the appellants’ argument that the application judge’s single reference to the Statutory Conditions led to an error in her analysis. The Statutory Conditions and the policy exclusion at issue were identically worded. It was this identical wording that led the appellants to reference the cases decided under the Statutory Conditions.
[2] The application judge was clearly alive to the issue she was required to determine. In the first sentence of her reasons, she stated that the insured sought “a declaration determinative of the Applicant’s claim … pursuant to the terms of an automobile insurance policy.”
[3] Later, the application judge correctly described the rule of interpretation that “an insurance contract is … to be strictly and narrowly interpreted.” We do not accept this ground of appeal.
[4] We also do not accept the argument that the interpretation reached by the application judge was not available to her on the undisputed facts. The appellants particularly challenge the application judge’s conclusion that the respondent was not involved in a “speed test” and therefore was entitled to coverage under the policy. The application judge had before her evidence of the purpose of the Driver Education Programme in which the respondent was engaged, including its objectives such as establishing proper steering wheel control, use of mirrors, proper braking and cornering techniques, as well as understanding basic vehicle dynamics and car control. There was more than ample evidence for the application judge’s conclusion that the respondent was not engaged in a “race” or “speed test”, but in “exercising his driving skills in an environment, which was, by design and intended purpose, such as to challenge his skills and the performance attributes of his vehicle.” The purpose and objectives set out in the manual clearly support the application judge’s conclusion.
[5] The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

aviography

While I'm glad to see the above court case ruling, I wonder how soon before Aviva changes the wording of their policy coverage to preclude future coverage when the incident occurs at an environment such as Mosport, Shannonville, Cayuga, or similar venue?

Turbodan

they can't the wording comes from the insurance act not their decision.

SToronto

Excellent information.

shizzle

Exactly. With this particular case, it was determined that and HPDE event is not a race or speed test and thus operating a car at an HPDE must be covered under the insurance act.

If you read the full transcript, you'll note that the judge did consider that no timing equipment was in the vehicle, or otherwise used during the event, and that passing was under controlled and performed on a non-competitive basis. So it's key that these conditions are met for an HPDE.

Targatoo

I have to believe this is one reason why PCA events are so strict regarding timers. And I'm glad that they are.

aviography

Excellent!

acadian_dad

Yup - I've heard some chief instructors at PCA say as much - and I suspect the situation muddies significantly on "open lapping days" or "private lapping days" that some of us have been to at various tracks. On these days there is little or no formal instruction taking place and timers are commonly used. Might be worth hiring a coach for a session at one of these days to have evidence of instruction.

I also wonder whether the use of POV cameras (which as we all know is becoming very common at the track - even at PCA & other club events) is something that insurance companies will point to as being a form of timing ...

I use mine purely for educational purposes and improving my "safety" ...

shizzle

IANAL, but I think the argument about racing etc., only works if the driver receives timing information as s/he is actually driving. With POV cameras that provide no feedback during driving, it would be hard for an insurance company to say that a race or speed test is being conducted. I would also argue that the purpose of a POV camera is to review your driving session, and further educate yourself on how to drive a safe and 'proper' line at the track.

Sharker

I think the issue with POV cameras or dash cams with GPS are going to cause a problem, as they will give you the speed

BioBanker

I have had three friends successfully battle their insurance companies for material damage at Mosport.

Each one was a fight but each one was successful.

I wouldnt count on it though!

TJ993

Real Interesting read ! Great to know!

I have recently purchased a P Car and I am in the big smoke.
I wonder if anyone can recomend a decent Insurer ? / Broker?
Thanks for your time in advance.
Regards
TJ