Then there's the old saying about, "Don't race a car that isn't paid
for." Sorry for the double negative. The correct way should be: "Only
race a car that is paid for." The hint here is that you should be able
to write the car off if it's totaled, or pay for its repair without
going to the insurance company. Makes high speed events even more
expensive, doesn't it?
--Pat Kelly
Jay Mitchell wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
> >Well, it wouldn't exactly be PC for a major newspaper to be in
> favor of
> >"civilians" taking their cars on the track, then hitting up
> insurance
> >companies for money, would it? :)
>
> Nor is it correct for a car owner to do that, IMO. This thread
> has come up before, and it has been established that State Farm's
> coverage includes "gymkhanas," so it appears that a Solo II
> incident would be covered by them. This is a far cry from a
> driving school held at a racing facility, however.
>
> >But this casts a bad image on the rest of
> >us who want to do these events legitimately, and ultimately it
> may be us who
> >get screwed in the end for this guy's mistake. That's why this
> case
> >deserves our consideration - not because he committed fraud, but
> because he
> >could easily ruin the fun for the rest of us.
>
> If you're counting on your insurance company to cover damage your
> car might suffer at racing speeds on a race track, I'd say you're
> already in line to have your fun ruined. This sort of
> expectation - that damage suffered in high-speed events should be
> covered by normal collision coverage - only serves to make
> insurance adjusters more suspicious and all of our premiums
> higher.
>
> It never ceases to amaze me that people will take their street
> driver to an event like this, wad it up into a ball, and expect
> people to pity them when the insurer won't pony up.
>
> Jay "you break it, you buy it, and I'll do likewise" Mitchell
|