ADAC Help please

[Bounce]

Your avatar is pure filth Dazza. I approve.:smt055

Apologies for hyjack!

:thumbs::thumbs::drool:

[_Nathan_]

Check your insurance following last weeks ruling...

[DazBlackCSL]

Check your insurance following last weeks ruling...

ohhhh what was that then Nath

[rstoughy]

Check your insurance following last weeks ruling...

ohhhh what was that then Nath

Yes what ruling was that please?

[glendog74]

ohhhh what was that then Nath

http://www.puregt.com/Forum/upload/showthread.php?t=42074

[Johnnywb]

http://www.puregt.com/Forum/upload/s...ad.php?t=42074

Can't see it if you're not a member?

[glendog74]

Sorry,

In August 2010 the Financial Ombudsman Service made a final decision regarding a case concerning the Nurburgring Nordschleife. The Ombudsman ruled that the Nordschleife is a one way toll circuit with all the characteristics of a 'prepared course'. The insured's policy excluded use on a 'prepared course'. This sort of exclusion was held to be neither unfair or unreasonable given the increased risks associated with driving in such places. The existence of road traffic laws and speed limits was said to be irrelevant as it is still a 'prepared course'. The insurer agreed to meet any third party liabilities but this did not mean that the driver was driving within the terms and conditions of his policy. The ombudsman said that UK and European law requires insurers to provide a minimum of 3rd party only cover even if their policyholders are using the insured vehicle in a manner which invalidates their own-damage cover. There is no restriction on the right to exclude certain matters affecting the policyholder's own property and person. Such matters are governed by the contract of insurance entered into by both parties. Hence, the insurer can indemnify the third party (to comply with the law) without having to indemnify the driver for his own losses if they arise from an excluded event or situation.

http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurburgring_insurance.html

[mattCSLnut]

Sorry,



http://www.leeds-solicitors.com/nurb...insurance.html

Could someone translate this into plain English please :whistle:

[glendog74]

I think in essence, the insurers finally have their get out clause for any customers who have an accident at the Ring on their 'normal insurance policy' as the Ring is now formally recognised as a 'prepared circuit' - even during a Tourist Fahrten day.

Therefore, unless you arrange Ring specific insurance for driving there it is now more likely than ever before that you will be doing so uninsured...

Under UK law, UK insurers are still legally obliged to provide the lowest level of cover (3rd Party liability) should you still drive on there without 'specific Ring cover' and end up in an accident. I'm sure that they would be very keen to recover the outlay for any such payouts incurred of course!

[Johnnywb]

Would certainly appear that way, but to be honest i already assumed as such. Be interesting day when there's a test case if they try to recover the third party costs. That will be the telling time.

[Pip1968]

Would certainly appear that way, but to be honest i already assumed as such. Be interesting day when there's a test case if they try to recover the third party costs. That will be the telling time.

Surely this particluar enquiry by the ombudsman is one such case ie where the insurer firstly did not want to pay out and now presumably will be trying to recover from his insured any monies paid to the third party if indeed there were any.

Pip

[Dan_csl]

I think in essence, the insurers finally have their get out clause for any customers who have an accident at the Ring on their 'normal insurance policy' as the Ring is now formally recognised as a 'prepared circuit' - even during a Tourist Fahrten day.

Therefore, unless you arrange Ring specific insurance for driving there it is now more likely than ever before that you will be doing so uninsured...

Under UK law, UK insurers are still legally obliged to provide the lowest level of cover (3rd Party liability) should you still drive on there without 'specific Ring cover' and end up in an accident. I'm sure that they would be very keen to recover the outlay for any such payouts incurred of course!

Totally correct mate, however, without getting too technical, as a policyholder you shouldn't have to pay the Third Party Liability costs back to your insurance company, you should be indemnified by the policy for these.

[Johnnywb]

Surely this particluar enquiry by the ombudsman is one such case ie where the insurer firstly did not want to pay out and now presumably will be trying to recover from his insured any monies paid to the third party if indeed there were any.

Pip

I read it more like someone was challenging whether their insurance company specifically excluding the Nordschliefe was legal. The ruling has siad that they can do, but that they must still honour any thrid party costs.

(which we have assumed the insurance company would then try and reclaim from the policyholder directly)

[shimmy]

(which we have assumed the insurance company would then try and reclaim from the policyholder directly)

im certainly no expert but i dont think they can do this.

Surely they have to cover and honour thrid party costs wherever the car is. IF it was in a private car park, private road, in a field, third party claims can happen anywhere

[_Nathan_]

Totally correct mate, however, without getting too technical, as a policyholder you shouldn't have to pay the Third Party Liability costs back to your insurance company, you should be indemnified by the policy for these.

Nope, they can pursue you for the money if they paid out and it turns out you weren't insured...