rcl4668
Enthusiast
I apologize in advance for the length of this post but thought this might be good food for thought for those that take their cars to HPDEs and driving schools.
I am getting ready to do about 8-10 HPDE/driving schools this year at various tracks in Oregon and Washington. I have completed my research on companies that offer collision insurance and have been pleased to find that there are multiple options available.
FYI, the companies I have found that offer liability insurance for track days are Anthony & Company (located in New Jersey), Ontrackinsurance.com (site member ACR Steve is one of the administrators of this program) and Locktonaffinity (they are the main providers of track day insurance on motorsportreg.com). A this point I am leaning heavily in favor of ontrackinsurance.com because of competitive pricing and because they offer insurance through an admitted insurer. (I believe this means that the company is guaranteed by a state's insurance fund which will step in and pay claims if the company defaults. Ordinarily I would not be so concerned about this but in these "interesting" times one cannot be so sure about a company's future existence). I am waiting to hear confirmation from ACR Steve that their insurer is admitted in Oregon and Washington.
Anyway, on to my question: I am also seriously considering the need for liability insurance at these events. So far, the only company I have found that offers liability is Anthony & Company. They are offering liability coverage for 8-10 track days for about $1500. On the one hand, this seems like fairly cheap peace of mind but on the other hand every event I attend involves the signing of a waiver that releases claims against participants. My question for those who run or regularly attend track/HPDE events, do you have liability insurance or do you believe that the track organizers waiver language and insurance coverage is sufficient?
I am an attorney but by no means specialize in sports or recreational law. My analysis below was for my own use and is not intended as legal advice nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship with anyone on this board blah blah etc etc. That being said, I did a little research and of course I found that states appear to be split on whether a comprehensive liability waiver would bar, for example, a lawsuit by the heirs of someone seriously injured or killed at the track. See, e.g. Gershon, Administratrix Ad Prosequendum for Estate of Pietroluongo, 368 N.J.Super. 237, 845 A.2d 720 (2004) (holding that broad liability waiver signed by participant who died in diving activity did not bar surviving wife and daughter from suing dive shop that conducted activity on grounds that New Jersey statute and public policy disfavored such waivers and that signing of such waiver by deceased father could bind deceased father but not ex-wife and daughter who did not sign waiver). In contrast other states such as California seem more willing to strictly enforce these types of waivers. See, e.g., Madison v. Superior Court, 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 250 Cal.Rptr. 299 (1988) (in case also involving a fatal diving accident, California court holding that signing of broad waiver of liability by person killed in diving accident operated to bar claims by surviving family members since dive shop could assert same defenses--including waiver of liability--against family that shop could assert against diver had he survived accident).
As luck would have it, neither Oregon nor Washington courts seems to have squarely confronted the issue of enforcing waivers of liability. Without some more clear assurance that I would be covered on the liability end of things, I am leaning towards getting my own liability insurance but wanted some perspectives from other attorneys on this board or from seasoned track participants and organizers (Jon B, Skip?) about this issue.
Thanks for your help on this.
/Rich
PS: adminstrators feel free to move this topic to whatever forum seems best suited for it.
I am getting ready to do about 8-10 HPDE/driving schools this year at various tracks in Oregon and Washington. I have completed my research on companies that offer collision insurance and have been pleased to find that there are multiple options available.
FYI, the companies I have found that offer liability insurance for track days are Anthony & Company (located in New Jersey), Ontrackinsurance.com (site member ACR Steve is one of the administrators of this program) and Locktonaffinity (they are the main providers of track day insurance on motorsportreg.com). A this point I am leaning heavily in favor of ontrackinsurance.com because of competitive pricing and because they offer insurance through an admitted insurer. (I believe this means that the company is guaranteed by a state's insurance fund which will step in and pay claims if the company defaults. Ordinarily I would not be so concerned about this but in these "interesting" times one cannot be so sure about a company's future existence). I am waiting to hear confirmation from ACR Steve that their insurer is admitted in Oregon and Washington.
Anyway, on to my question: I am also seriously considering the need for liability insurance at these events. So far, the only company I have found that offers liability is Anthony & Company. They are offering liability coverage for 8-10 track days for about $1500. On the one hand, this seems like fairly cheap peace of mind but on the other hand every event I attend involves the signing of a waiver that releases claims against participants. My question for those who run or regularly attend track/HPDE events, do you have liability insurance or do you believe that the track organizers waiver language and insurance coverage is sufficient?
I am an attorney but by no means specialize in sports or recreational law. My analysis below was for my own use and is not intended as legal advice nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship with anyone on this board blah blah etc etc. That being said, I did a little research and of course I found that states appear to be split on whether a comprehensive liability waiver would bar, for example, a lawsuit by the heirs of someone seriously injured or killed at the track. See, e.g. Gershon, Administratrix Ad Prosequendum for Estate of Pietroluongo, 368 N.J.Super. 237, 845 A.2d 720 (2004) (holding that broad liability waiver signed by participant who died in diving activity did not bar surviving wife and daughter from suing dive shop that conducted activity on grounds that New Jersey statute and public policy disfavored such waivers and that signing of such waiver by deceased father could bind deceased father but not ex-wife and daughter who did not sign waiver). In contrast other states such as California seem more willing to strictly enforce these types of waivers. See, e.g., Madison v. Superior Court, 203 Cal.App.3d 589, 250 Cal.Rptr. 299 (1988) (in case also involving a fatal diving accident, California court holding that signing of broad waiver of liability by person killed in diving accident operated to bar claims by surviving family members since dive shop could assert same defenses--including waiver of liability--against family that shop could assert against diver had he survived accident).
As luck would have it, neither Oregon nor Washington courts seems to have squarely confronted the issue of enforcing waivers of liability. Without some more clear assurance that I would be covered on the liability end of things, I am leaning towards getting my own liability insurance but wanted some perspectives from other attorneys on this board or from seasoned track participants and organizers (Jon B, Skip?) about this issue.
Thanks for your help on this.
/Rich
PS: adminstrators feel free to move this topic to whatever forum seems best suited for it.
