Guys, I just skimmed this thread, but one point that is being lost here......(and yes, I am a lawyer, ducking now)......."premises" or general type liability issues, the tripping over the jack, still have to involve some fault on the part of the SCCA. Yes, this is America, and yes we are incredibly litigious, but you can't sue the SCCA and/or the track simply because YOU fell on a jack.

I know that most of us don't have much faith in our Court system (and please don't post about the McDonald's coffee case, etc.), but I will tell you that if someone sued over falling on their own jack in a paddock area, 99 times out of 100 that case is GONE on a motion to dismiss.

So, again, I'm at a loss here. It seems to me that Matt's basic premise -- that Solo and Road Racing have the same "premises"/general liability type risk -- is correct, but what is faulty about his thinking is that he beleives it is that risk that is driving the rate calculation. I suspect it is not, given the above.

Premiums are calculated based on loss experience and lawsuits, and remember that insurance is a highly regulated industry in ALL states. Rates are generally approved by a Department of Insurance or its like, for the most part. In any event, I suspect that the loss experience and lawsuit frequency for road racing is much higher than Solo, and that is what is driving the difference in premium.