Insurance

[JeffYoung]

Trying....to ..... resist.........can't.....stop.....typing.....


The answer -- that depends on what the "car" is worth.

[Mattberg]

Trying....to ..... resist.........can't.....stop.....typing.....
The answer -- that depends on what the "car" is worth.
[/b]

Got a chuckle out of me...

The car isn't worth anything. Just insuring against the possibility of someone suing you vis-a-vis it's use. Think about it.

Sidenote:

In a letter I received yesterday from Jim Julow, president of SCCA, Inc., I was informed that Pete Lyon has resigned as general counsel, effective August 2006. Funny how there was no announcement. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would you pay $47,000 a year to insure your car? [/b]

Depends on what my car was worth - and how many people actually owned it.

[lateapex911]

, I was informed that Pete Lyon has resigned as general counsel, effective August 2006. Funny how there was no announcement. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. [/b]

Pehaps we can have the next "Watergate" here...but hey, to lend it the seriousness it deserves, lets call it "Mattgate".

[CDS]

Would you pay $47,000 a year to insure your car?
[/b]

But you are not insuring your car. You are insuring yourself and everything you own against your negligent use of your car. Big difference.

I've been following this with interest. I think it boils down to this:

Do we need insurance? Anyone with any business sense will agree we do. And as others have pointed out, we must have it to play at someone else's house (i.e. track rental requirements).

Are we paying too much for that insurance? Perhaps, but despite several references to documentation, I haven't seen anything that supports a conclusion one way or another.

I agree that the question needs to be asked, and the BOD needs to be forthcoming with full disclosure.

[Mattberg]

The question is then, would you pay $47,000 a year for your CURRENT auto insurance liability ONLY policy? You don't get collision, theft, etc. on your racecar.

[Mattberg]

The first order of business was the Insurance report by Pete Lyon. The bottom line here
is that a fairly significant increase in premiums will be required next year due almost
entirely to losses in the rally/solo areas. We continue to have concerns with out of
control vehicles at Solo events particularly at the finish line area. This fact gives great
emphasis to the necessity of Safety Stewards making sure that events are conducted in
complete compliance with our safety requirements, with special emphasis on the
location of finish lines at solo events, and spectator control at all solo and rally events.[/b]

Need I say more?

[shwah]

Since Matt didn't bother - that exerpt is from a letter Larry Dent, area 4 director BoD Meeting Report to Area 4 director wrote.

http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/system/file...ting+report.pdf

[pgipson]

There is a great discussion on this topic over on the on the prod forum that is being led persuasively by someone with a similar login as Mr. Mattberg. Perhaps we could let this one die naturally and continue the discourse over there?

[Greg Amy]

Perhaps we could let this one die naturally and continue the discourse over there?[/b]

Party pooper...

[ddewhurst]

Paul, would he be called a troll? My bet would be that if EVERYONE quit posting he would continue argueing with himself. Kind of like this fool :026: who is jumping with no legs.

[JohnRW]

"Solipsism"

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsist

[Drew Aldred]

Yeah, let's not talk about road racers having to pay higher entry fees to supplement higher insurance costs due to claims by solo racers. Some of you may not like Matt's delivery style, but read Larry Dent's letter regarding insurance costs and ask yourself where the extra money to pay for this increase in insurance costs is going to come from.

Apparently the line about road racing being the leader for insurance claims has been over rated.

[lateapex911]

That's an interesting letter, and i found some of it encouraging. Let's hope the words ring true.

[RacerBill]

There are two approaches with insurance (if not more). A statistical approach relies on the law of large numbers - spread the cost of claims over as many insured parties as possible. However, another approach says that risks need to be segregated (auto, home, life is one way to segregate risk) and underwritten seperately. Why should my homeowner's insurance be higher to subsidize the premiums of nuts who want to build expensive homes in places where they have a great risk of earthquakes, mudslides, brush fires, hurricanes, tunamis, whatever. Of course this is an oversimplification, but I think it points out what we are concerned about.

Should we be concerned that each of the primary areas of our sport (road racing, rally, solo) are carrying their respective share of the insurance load? Or should 'stronger' areas help support weaker areas to help the club as a whole?

In his letter, Mr. Dent states 'that a fairly significant increase in premiums will be required next year due almost entirely to losses in the rally/solo areas' but does not mention how those increases are going to be allocated. I think that we all hope that it will be done in a fair and equitable manner for the good of the club as a whole (just as long as my entry fees don't go up! just kidding).

Let's show the BOD that we have constructive concerns about insurance. I am going to write to my director and see if he can share the method that the club will use to distribute the cost of insurance. Understanding this process will go a long was to disolve our concerns. One hopes it is a little more scientific than dividing the total cost by the number of participants!
Ducking now!

[JohnRW]

For all the finger-pointing and demagoguery on this subject, I think it's really fascinating that nobody has talked to (or admitted talking to...) smaller "local" clubs (Corvette clubs, Mercedes clubs, etc. etc. etc.) that DO have autocrosses, to find out what they pay for event insurance. They hold them in the same locations as do SCCA regions, and are most likely held to the same standards of coverage by the property owners.

Is it that much easier to just squawk on the internet, than to drop a dime and call around for info ? Apparently so.

If you're carrying a torch, but are only doing your squawking based on hearsay evidence, then you are too easily led around by the nose. That's actually a polite way of saying "idiot".

Oh, my...I think that will offend some people.

[RacerBill]

From my note this afternoon to Larry Dent:

One area of your letter has raised the concerns of several racers who post on the Improved Touring forum. I am by no means speaking for the IT racers on the Forum, all IT racers or all road racers in general, however most of them probably have concerns about rising costs, especially the cost of insurance. Is there any way that you can share with us the method that the Club uses to distribute the cost of insurance that trickles down to our entry fees? I think that what we are looking for is just an assurance that the process is fair and equitable.

And his response, posted with his permission:

"A tough and complicated question that to the best of my knowledge and belief is most fair and equitable. Here is a copy of a note I just sent to another member who asked about the same questions.


Joe, the road race program has suffered significant losses in the past also, and the insurance pool has covered those, so don't think you are supporting solo, because there have been times that solo has supported you. Our insurance is a blanket policy that covers every activitiy of the SCCA and the premiums are allocated accordingly. Solo is in for a 25% plus increase in premium. The insurance costs are one of the more equitable areas of the club in my view, and I am on the insurance committee for the club and was the insurance agent of record for the club for 4 years in the past."

And when I asked for a clarification of the statement "the premiums are allocated accordingly" he responded:

"Could I say SWAG (stupid wild ass guess)? Mostly claims history, and taking into account the loss ratios at the time of establishing next years coverage and costs with the insurance company. After 5 years the losses drop off the chart so the rates basically reflect the losses over the past 5 years. One big loss can sway the loss ratio for an individual group, and right now the loss ratio is high in the solo and rally department, so they are getting the brunt of the increase. But that could change next year if we had a big loss in the racing area.

Many years ago it was likely by SWAG, but now days the loss ratios tell the tale as much as anything else.

It's a balancing act based mostly on historical patterns, perceived dangers, and convincing the insurance companies we are taking steps to assure losses are kept to a minimum. As I said, complicated and complex."


I thank Mr. Dent for his responses and expecially his willingness and the speed in responding to my questions.

[BStewart]

Last spring, at a Solo in Oregon, a driver with a Corvette with an autobox borrowed a friends Porsche GT3 for a "fun run". At the finish line, he stepped on the clutch instead of the brake pedal and ran into 3 cars.

I guess this means we are paying for this idiot's mistake.

Bill

[Mattberg]

Last spring, at a Solo in Oregon, a driver with a Corvette with an autobox borrowed a friends Porsche GT3 for a "fun run". At the finish line, he stepped on the clutch instead of the brake pedal and ran into 3 cars.

I guess this means we are paying for this idiot's mistake.

Bill
[/b]

Yes we are... and the others as well in every respect to allowing them to have a hobby. Around $14 million over the last seven years minimum.

[joeg]

Hey we are a club of many motorhead disciplines...chill out.

Remember my rule of insurance--it covers everything expept what happens to you...