Insurance
- Thread starter Mattberg
- Start date
Joe Harlan
New member
Jeff, I am only replying for this reason. The links to the rate sheets I provided show that SOLO pays no Liablility premium as part of their sanction.
Second there is only so much information that anyone will release on most of this stuff, You can get a financial statement that will tell you nothing but general terms. What is needed is a break down of how funds and expenses are be allocated.
I will not talk any club business here any further. There is a new site http://www.saveclubracing.com/forums
I paid for this site and once it is up and running with proper admins and mods I will turn the keys to it over to that group. The management of this club is very important and that is why thee questions are needed and should be answered fully.
See that? JohnRW got the topic skewed with his irrelevant comments about value...
Jeff, it has NOTHING to do with rates or value. It has to do with Club Racing paying an unfair portion of the whole policy. And yes, I confirmed with a Topeka employee that Club Racing is carrying the liabiliity policy on its own. Furthermore, if you missed it, I also found out that solo paid NO insurance up until the late nineties. I am also told that many other expenses are not allocated fairly including office expenses in Topeka. Considering that Topeka is an almost $5 million expense that's pretty significant.
JeffYoung
New member
Yes, I see that (on the rate sheet). My question was different, and I didn't phrase it like I should have.
Can someone show me that a RATE CHARGED BY THE INSURER FOR SOLO IS BEING PAID BY CLUB RACING?
Sorry for the all caps, I just want to be clear. The insurer (and that's not Weisenberg by the way, they are just the agent) sets the rates; the SCCA simply selects the coverages. Now, the SCCA may not carry CGL coverage for a Solo event, but that is the SCCA's choice based on a risk analysis.
I just type like a bitchy wife.
Can someone show me that a RATE CHARGED BY THE INSURER FOR SOLO IS BEING PAID BY CLUB RACING?
Sorry for the all caps, I just want to be clear. The insurer (and that's not Weisenberg by the way, they are just the agent) sets the rates; the SCCA simply selects the coverages. Now, the SCCA may not carry CGL coverage for a Solo event, but that is the SCCA's choice based on a risk analysis.
I just type like a bitchy wife.
Sure. Just look at the prices for a combined event where an event is run with both a club racing and solo event on the same weekend (e.g., CFR at Sebring Long Course). The charges for participants are the same as always. Now, if the liability insurance for a road racing event is more expensive, first, why would you put a solo event there without charging more (which they don't) and second, why wouldn't solo particpants be subject to a liability surcharge for holding there event at a club racing event? Pretty simple Jeff. You're a lawyer. Figure it out. The premium is already fully inclusive with the payment made by club racing. THere is no additional insurance needed because it's a blanket policy for the whole club.
JeffYoung
New member
No, with all due respect, that doesn't answer the question. Combo solo/club racing events are rare. The insurer may just look at the combined event, see little additional risk in having them run together and and cover the solo event at no additional cost.
Matt, the flaw in your is that you are assuming the SCCA is charging the racers something different than the insurance company is charging the SCCA. That we don't know and I also agree that it would be nice if the SCCA gave us documents to show this one way or the other.
It is entirely possible (and probably likely) that it is the insurer who sees Solo as far less risky and charges less.
EDIT -- what you guys need to do to convince me and others to your cause (and I'm not saying you are wrong) is to find out:
a. What the insurer is charging the SCCA on a per event basis. Basically you need to get the policy and the premium information.
b. Then compare that to sheet on the webpage.
If they are different, I agree, Houson, we may have a problem.
But where your analysis goes off track is if the SCCA is simply passing the actual cost charged by the insurance company to the SCCA onto the racer.
Matt, the flaw in your is that you are assuming the SCCA is charging the racers something different than the insurance company is charging the SCCA. That we don't know and I also agree that it would be nice if the SCCA gave us documents to show this one way or the other.
It is entirely possible (and probably likely) that it is the insurer who sees Solo as far less risky and charges less.
EDIT -- what you guys need to do to convince me and others to your cause (and I'm not saying you are wrong) is to find out:
a. What the insurer is charging the SCCA on a per event basis. Basically you need to get the policy and the premium information.
b. Then compare that to sheet on the webpage.
If they are different, I agree, Houson, we may have a problem.
But where your analysis goes off track is if the SCCA is simply passing the actual cost charged by the insurance company to the SCCA onto the racer.
Jeff, no offense but it's like talking to a wall. I thought you were an attorney. It has NOTHING to do with the "danger" of the activity and risk to participants. THat's why it costs more to insure an auto show than a race. WHy is this so difficult to understand? As an attorney you should be more than familiar with the potential cost of a personal injury suit versus a capped medical benefit claim. It's about the "slip and fall" and legal costs not how fast any one is going.
Now with that said, why would road racers pay $15 per driver for liability insurance and solo racers $0 for the same coverage at an event at the same track on the same weekend? Why did solo pay nothing until the late nineties? THese are not anything you have to see a policy for. ANd I can tell you that you are not a lawyer if you think an insurer is going to say "what the heck" we're not going to charge any extra. That's the most ridiculous thing I may have ever heard. One policy for liability is paid by club. It covers everybody but only we pay for it. I've already confirmed that with an ex-employee of the club.
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend the position of the solo people.
Now with that said, why would road racers pay $15 per driver for liability insurance and solo racers $0 for the same coverage at an event at the same track on the same weekend? Why did solo pay nothing until the late nineties? THese are not anything you have to see a policy for. ANd I can tell you that you are not a lawyer if you think an insurer is going to say "what the heck" we're not going to charge any extra. That's the most ridiculous thing I may have ever heard. One policy for liability is paid by club. It covers everybody but only we pay for it. I've already confirmed that with an ex-employee of the club.
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend the position of the solo people.
And one more thing outside of the insurance...
Why is the entry fee for the club racer the same with the solo event added? Why isn't the entry fee reduced by the amount of "rent" solo should pay for the track time at OUR event? Bottom line is solo got all their regular medical coverage for their meager $4.50 and got their track for free along with their liability insurance! THis has become an ongoing practice by regions and a few have been nailed for it others haven't. All the solo money that comes in goes directly to the region and NEVER benefits road racers. It's a classic case of welfare. I don't think people driving sports cars for fun should be entitled to welfare and certainly not at the expense of those who don't even know it's happening. At minimum full disclosure is required. Personally, I would not attend an event where solo was getting a free ride like this.
Why is the entry fee for the club racer the same with the solo event added? Why isn't the entry fee reduced by the amount of "rent" solo should pay for the track time at OUR event? Bottom line is solo got all their regular medical coverage for their meager $4.50 and got their track for free along with their liability insurance! THis has become an ongoing practice by regions and a few have been nailed for it others haven't. All the solo money that comes in goes directly to the region and NEVER benefits road racers. It's a classic case of welfare. I don't think people driving sports cars for fun should be entitled to welfare and certainly not at the expense of those who don't even know it's happening. At minimum full disclosure is required. Personally, I would not attend an event where solo was getting a free ride like this.
JeffYoung
New member
Last time, and then I am done with this.
Please believe that I understand and deal with multi-million dollar CGL, Auto, OCIP, Comp, Auto and other insurance policies every day. Please believe that I have some understanding of how these policies work. If you don't, you don't and it's just time to end the discussion.
You continue to seem to think that the SCCA is setting the rate charged for insurance. You see $15 charged to racers and $0 to Solo drivers at the same event and immediately think the racers are getting screwed.
What you are missing is that it may not be the SCCA that is setting these rates and not charging Solo anything for CGL. The insurer MAY (I don't know and I haven't seen anything from you either) simply not charge CGL for the event. Or, the SCCA may be making the decision that the risk to non-participants from slip and fall type events that result in a lawsuit against the SCCA is low enough that they don't carry specific coverage for it. You are probably correct that there is one policy for the club, but the calculation of premium is done by the insurer based on what the club does -- meaning solo I, solo II, road racing, rally etc. If the SCCA is simply mirroring the insurer's rate calculation when it sets the amounts it charges road racers and solo guys per car, then there is no "screwing" going on.
There are many, many things that you simply aren't understanding or considering here. All you do is look at $15 for racers, $0 for Solo and conclude that racers are getting screwed. That's just not the case. You need to know more before you jump -- and it is a jump -- to that conclusion. That is all I am saying. We don't have enough information to make the conclusion you are making.
Why am I defending the solo crowd? I don't think that is what I am doing. I think I am trying to defuse some of the "black helicopter" mentality I see in most of what you post. Not everyone is out to screw you or the things you are interested in. Some are, and you may even be right about some of the things you post. But, you do it with logical leaps and attacks that really, really, detract from what you are trying to do.
We met in person at school at Roebling, and you seemed like a very decent guy -- helped me some with some issues with my car, and I think I leant you a tap and die set. That's the guy I wish would post here, instead of the constant accusations that someone in Alabama is trying to screw you out of races or that you want to fight someone at the annual meeting or that you know more about insurance than anyone here.
That's all I'm saying. Signing off.
Please believe that I understand and deal with multi-million dollar CGL, Auto, OCIP, Comp, Auto and other insurance policies every day. Please believe that I have some understanding of how these policies work. If you don't, you don't and it's just time to end the discussion.
You continue to seem to think that the SCCA is setting the rate charged for insurance. You see $15 charged to racers and $0 to Solo drivers at the same event and immediately think the racers are getting screwed.
What you are missing is that it may not be the SCCA that is setting these rates and not charging Solo anything for CGL. The insurer MAY (I don't know and I haven't seen anything from you either) simply not charge CGL for the event. Or, the SCCA may be making the decision that the risk to non-participants from slip and fall type events that result in a lawsuit against the SCCA is low enough that they don't carry specific coverage for it. You are probably correct that there is one policy for the club, but the calculation of premium is done by the insurer based on what the club does -- meaning solo I, solo II, road racing, rally etc. If the SCCA is simply mirroring the insurer's rate calculation when it sets the amounts it charges road racers and solo guys per car, then there is no "screwing" going on.
There are many, many things that you simply aren't understanding or considering here. All you do is look at $15 for racers, $0 for Solo and conclude that racers are getting screwed. That's just not the case. You need to know more before you jump -- and it is a jump -- to that conclusion. That is all I am saying. We don't have enough information to make the conclusion you are making.
Why am I defending the solo crowd? I don't think that is what I am doing. I think I am trying to defuse some of the "black helicopter" mentality I see in most of what you post. Not everyone is out to screw you or the things you are interested in. Some are, and you may even be right about some of the things you post. But, you do it with logical leaps and attacks that really, really, detract from what you are trying to do.
We met in person at school at Roebling, and you seemed like a very decent guy -- helped me some with some issues with my car, and I think I leant you a tap and die set. That's the guy I wish would post here, instead of the constant accusations that someone in Alabama is trying to screw you out of races or that you want to fight someone at the annual meeting or that you know more about insurance than anyone here.
That's all I'm saying. Signing off.
RSTPerformance
New member
click the link to see the correct smiley for this post...
hi, my name is Matt... I am actually the wall, why is everyone beating me up??? oh yeah, cause I bring up topics I have no clue about simply to stirr the pot. I prove that by not answering any questions, get any facts to back my statments and by claiming discussions with ex-members of the club, whom also probably have a scewed bad opinion about the club.
Raymond "Now the only question I have (cause I lost interest in yet another lame topic that has no merit that you started) is... who will finally bring down the wall?" Blethen
hi, my name is Matt... I am actually the wall, why is everyone beating me up??? oh yeah, cause I bring up topics I have no clue about simply to stirr the pot. I prove that by not answering any questions, get any facts to back my statments and by claiming discussions with ex-members of the club, whom also probably have a scewed bad opinion about the club.
Raymond "Now the only question I have (cause I lost interest in yet another lame topic that has no merit that you started) is... who will finally bring down the wall?" Blethen
Ok... Let's go back to square one and take it in baby steps...
The track/facility requires liability insurance proof. Solo or club racing, it doesn't matter. THey could care less if a competitor makes himself a greasy spot on the road but they worry about lawsuits from those not part of the waiver or involved in an accident unrelated to the accepted participation in an ultra-hazardous activity. So, SCCA issues an insurance certificate for the event. And BTW, this is actually duplicate coverage as the track also has coverage. Anyway, that coverage is detailed in the SCCA insurance handbook. Who sets the rates is unimportant as the SCCA is the one who sends the bill. If the SCCA is undercharging or overcharging is a whole different matter. Now, I've already confirmed through an employee that solo rides our liability insurance and without it they couldn't hold an event. Do you really think that the insurance company, in this day and age, simply covers solo for free? Do you think they allow a certificate of insurance and coverage for liability at no cost? Really guys, that's not realistic. If you're telling me you can insure against liability any arbitrary event free of charge, I want you to be my insurance carrier.
Down to brass tacks... there is one policy. Policy OGLG21749771 managed by Arcadia Insurance. The carriers listed are Ace Insurance and Markel Insurance. I would assume from what I've read that Markel provides the health policy while Ace provides the liability coverage, or possibly ACE is just a reinsurer although I'd doubt that given they're listed on the policy as a provider. It really doesn't matter. So we're back to the same spot. With one policy that guarantees coverage for solo vis-a-vis a certificate required by the track or facility proving CGL coverage, your contention is that club racing pays the whole bill because the insurance company are nice guys and don't charge solo? That's pretty naive. THe numbers sure don't show that but I'll get to that in a minute. FUrthermore, if you think that liability insurance for a club racing event should be ten times what it is for a solo event I guess there's no use talking about it because you're in a dream world. An event is an event. There is no more chance of me slipping on a wet bathroom floor at Daytona or a Denny's. THe disparity of rates is unexplainable other than your route which is that the insurance company doesn't worry about solo. Fine. Eliminate them from use of our CGL certificate and get the policy requoted. I will bet you your house Jeff, that they won't issue a certificate for a solo event.
Also, and I'm sure this comes as no shock, after examining the insurance documents I'm pretty sure that we cover and pay for pro racing as well. THere are no rates quoted for pro but the coverage includes them AND their spectators. THe club won't release the exact numbers but in some quick calculations, given the entries for all events and examination of the P&L statement it sure looks like club racing is paying for everybody on a single policy. THe handbook contains no reference to any other policy. I find it hard to believe the the club racing department is paying close to $1.4M a year for club racing alone for $5 million in liability and $1M in medical coverage just for club racers. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you? THat's like paying $200,000 a year for your auto insurance, unless of course, you were insuring everbody on your block.
The quick and dirty math has club racers paying roughly $300 a year each for insurance, which by the way is no longer primary, but supplementary coverage and most of us are already insured. Most of the claims paid by the club insurance come from non-racers such as officials, workers and solo people, a fact I checked with Topeka. So, if you do 5 events, that's $60 per race you pay for insurance you probably already have. Think about that next time you pay an entry fee. Anyway you look at it the numbers don't add up correctly. Forget about the rates and just look at the inequity of the distribution of payments.
Lastly, much of this has much more far reaching implications, most importantly, our 501C status. THere's way more to this than simply your trying to classify the whole thing as "black helicopters". The inclusion of pro racing is most worrisome. But as I said, the documentation is sketchy there so I can't be sure but the numbers point to that scenario. End of the day, solo gets liability coverage and your only argument is that the insurance company gives it to them for free. I think that's what you should prove.
The track/facility requires liability insurance proof. Solo or club racing, it doesn't matter. THey could care less if a competitor makes himself a greasy spot on the road but they worry about lawsuits from those not part of the waiver or involved in an accident unrelated to the accepted participation in an ultra-hazardous activity. So, SCCA issues an insurance certificate for the event. And BTW, this is actually duplicate coverage as the track also has coverage. Anyway, that coverage is detailed in the SCCA insurance handbook. Who sets the rates is unimportant as the SCCA is the one who sends the bill. If the SCCA is undercharging or overcharging is a whole different matter. Now, I've already confirmed through an employee that solo rides our liability insurance and without it they couldn't hold an event. Do you really think that the insurance company, in this day and age, simply covers solo for free? Do you think they allow a certificate of insurance and coverage for liability at no cost? Really guys, that's not realistic. If you're telling me you can insure against liability any arbitrary event free of charge, I want you to be my insurance carrier.
Down to brass tacks... there is one policy. Policy OGLG21749771 managed by Arcadia Insurance. The carriers listed are Ace Insurance and Markel Insurance. I would assume from what I've read that Markel provides the health policy while Ace provides the liability coverage, or possibly ACE is just a reinsurer although I'd doubt that given they're listed on the policy as a provider. It really doesn't matter. So we're back to the same spot. With one policy that guarantees coverage for solo vis-a-vis a certificate required by the track or facility proving CGL coverage, your contention is that club racing pays the whole bill because the insurance company are nice guys and don't charge solo? That's pretty naive. THe numbers sure don't show that but I'll get to that in a minute. FUrthermore, if you think that liability insurance for a club racing event should be ten times what it is for a solo event I guess there's no use talking about it because you're in a dream world. An event is an event. There is no more chance of me slipping on a wet bathroom floor at Daytona or a Denny's. THe disparity of rates is unexplainable other than your route which is that the insurance company doesn't worry about solo. Fine. Eliminate them from use of our CGL certificate and get the policy requoted. I will bet you your house Jeff, that they won't issue a certificate for a solo event.
Also, and I'm sure this comes as no shock, after examining the insurance documents I'm pretty sure that we cover and pay for pro racing as well. THere are no rates quoted for pro but the coverage includes them AND their spectators. THe club won't release the exact numbers but in some quick calculations, given the entries for all events and examination of the P&L statement it sure looks like club racing is paying for everybody on a single policy. THe handbook contains no reference to any other policy. I find it hard to believe the the club racing department is paying close to $1.4M a year for club racing alone for $5 million in liability and $1M in medical coverage just for club racers. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you? THat's like paying $200,000 a year for your auto insurance, unless of course, you were insuring everbody on your block.
The quick and dirty math has club racers paying roughly $300 a year each for insurance, which by the way is no longer primary, but supplementary coverage and most of us are already insured. Most of the claims paid by the club insurance come from non-racers such as officials, workers and solo people, a fact I checked with Topeka. So, if you do 5 events, that's $60 per race you pay for insurance you probably already have. Think about that next time you pay an entry fee. Anyway you look at it the numbers don't add up correctly. Forget about the rates and just look at the inequity of the distribution of payments. Lastly, much of this has much more far reaching implications, most importantly, our 501C status. THere's way more to this than simply your trying to classify the whole thing as "black helicopters". The inclusion of pro racing is most worrisome. But as I said, the documentation is sketchy there so I can't be sure but the numbers point to that scenario. End of the day, solo gets liability coverage and your only argument is that the insurance company gives it to them for free. I think that's what you should prove.
Joe Harlan
New member
Raymond, Jeff and Matt, Let me remove my tin foil cap long enough to type this.
The only financial information we have to work from is the published information. The July fastrack on SCCA.com has a financial statement and it list insurance cost at 1.5 million dollars and offers no break down of how it is split. The insurance publication on that same site gives a break down of how it is charged to a region for sanctions. That is the information we have. I will continue to work to get exact answers as to how that expense is divided. I don't want to continue to waste bandwith on the IT site over this deal. http://www.saveclubracing.com is the place to continue this discussion and the place any FACTs will be posted in the end.
The only financial information we have to work from is the published information. The July fastrack on SCCA.com has a financial statement and it list insurance cost at 1.5 million dollars and offers no break down of how it is split. The insurance publication on that same site gives a break down of how it is charged to a region for sanctions. That is the information we have. I will continue to work to get exact answers as to how that expense is divided. I don't want to continue to waste bandwith on the IT site over this deal. http://www.saveclubracing.com is the place to continue this discussion and the place any FACTs will be posted in the end.
Little lesson on insurance:
Premium = Expected Payout + Insurer Profit
Expected Payout = Summation(Probabilty of Incident I x Expected Payout if Incident I occurs)
Expected Payout Incident I = Integrated P(I) x $P(I)
Example: Probability of a car going into a spectator area * Expected Payout car into spectator area
Expected payout: $0xP(i) + $1xP(i) + ..... + all the money you can shake a stick at and the stick too x P(i)
Where: Summation of the Probabilities for a given incident = 1
More people at an event increases the probability of a payout
Higher speed increases the probability of a payout and increases the range of payouts
Cars involved in head-to-head competition increases the probability of a payout
An auto show costs more to insure because the larger number of people increases the probability that there will be a payout.
A club race costs more to insure because the higher speeds and the element of direct car-to-car racing increases the probability that there will be a payout. In addition, the higher speeds also makes for a wider distribution of payouts, also increasing the cost of insurance.
In addition, your statement that participants cannot sue is incorrect. A waiver only makes it harder to win, it does not keep it from happening. I guarantee you that if an open-wheel car submarines under an improperly installed/maintained piece of armco at a certain track in New York, the estate of the deceased would win. I believe the term is gross negligance - that track KNOWS what happens when armco is bad and allowing someone to race with bad armco would be gross negligance.
I already made the comment earlier in the thread that gross negligence would very possibly and most likely negate the waiver and litgation against the insured, but without such a scenario, there is little probability of such. It has been tried over and over again for many years without success. The last case I know of was a young girl killed by a hockey puck a few years back.
AS far as the payout, the calculations you present are fine but remember that the risk for everything but liability are also capped at five time less than liability which given the aformention scenario is improbable. It's about legal fees and the fact that they can and will happen without any real correlation to the activity. A single lawsuit can go beyond the maximum payout with relative ease just in legal fees very fast. So as I said, and as you stated, it is the potential payout that is of concern to the insurance company. And just for the record, I would think that THe probability of a car flying into spectators is significantly greater at a solo event as there is little or no restriction, protection or fencing in most cases. See the video posted earlier. FUrthermore, UNLESS you have that gross negligence element the likelihood you'd be able to sue is probably not going to exist even as a spectator given no act of negligence. As far as head to head competition? Same deal. Medical yes, liability no.
BTW. Do you have any proof that higher speeds are or have ever been a cause for any liability claim or payouts given no negligence? It sounds to me like you're presenting more of an analysis or analogy to personal auto insurance and the way liability is alculated there versus specialty event insurance with acceptance of risk for the activity.
The liability insurance is based on ending up in court, not a hospital. Case in point is the SCCA's latest blunder which didn't even involve an event or injury, just the liability for unfair business practices of certain of our BoD members. The cost: an extimated $6 million. More than any other claim has ever cost the club.
And don't forget... Legal fees are not affected by any policy limits.
AS far as the payout, the calculations you present are fine but remember that the risk for everything but liability are also capped at five time less than liability which given the aformention scenario is improbable. It's about legal fees and the fact that they can and will happen without any real correlation to the activity. A single lawsuit can go beyond the maximum payout with relative ease just in legal fees very fast. So as I said, and as you stated, it is the potential payout that is of concern to the insurance company. And just for the record, I would think that THe probability of a car flying into spectators is significantly greater at a solo event as there is little or no restriction, protection or fencing in most cases. See the video posted earlier. FUrthermore, UNLESS you have that gross negligence element the likelihood you'd be able to sue is probably not going to exist even as a spectator given no act of negligence. As far as head to head competition? Same deal. Medical yes, liability no.
BTW. Do you have any proof that higher speeds are or have ever been a cause for any liability claim or payouts given no negligence? It sounds to me like you're presenting more of an analysis or analogy to personal auto insurance and the way liability is alculated there versus specialty event insurance with acceptance of risk for the activity.
The liability insurance is based on ending up in court, not a hospital. Case in point is the SCCA's latest blunder which didn't even involve an event or injury, just the liability for unfair business practices of certain of our BoD members. The cost: an extimated $6 million. More than any other claim has ever cost the club.
And don't forget... Legal fees are not affected by any policy limits.
Matt Rowe
New member
And in my experience there are virtually no spectator Solo events. Every one I've been to or been aware of (excluding the Solo National) has been a non-spectator event in which case everyone on the property is required to sign the waiver to be at the site. So assuming the waiver offers the protection against all but gross negligence that both you and risk management seem to agree with, why would Solo have significant liability exposure? Now for those cases where the event is advertised as a spectator event the insurance sheet does call out an additional charge which could theoretically be applied to the additional liability exposure.
Based on how the process has been described to me there is a single policy negotiated with the insurer based on ALL of the club activities which includes club racing, solo, rally cross and so on. The negotiation takes into account event types, past history of number of events, car counts, participation and previous claims and issues. The insurer then provides a total for the ENTIRE policy and then risk management submits a proposal to the BOD that approves the insurance fee schedule. That last part is where there is some potential disconnect as the distribution of fees is supposedly determined by risk management's perception of where the expenses are derived from. In theory those estimates should be in line with the insurers assessment but the explanation I have been given implies the actual quote does not contain enough detail to verify this.
Finally, Matt you've commented to others that their assessment of liability risks is based on theory more than actual numbers. I would challenge that you are also making assumptions and would guess based on some of your comments that you have relatively little experience with Solo events and are ill equipped to make judgements on liability. For example, in my experience it is far more likely for a car to endanger people at a club race than a solo event and when it does happen the people at a solo event are signed on a SCCA waiver while club racing has a significant chance the person is not signed on any waiver, or only a track waiver. But beyond that the layout and safety assessments of solo course has guidelines to limit that type of exposure and SCCA's track record of following those guidelines provides data used during the risk assessment.
A .1% probability of a $2mn payout equates to a premium of $2,000 for the event. The product of a small probability/high cost event results in a high expected payout. It is these exact scenarios that drive the freaking insurance cost.
How much was paid out to the families killed by a flying wheel at Charlotte and MIS?
Every club track we race on that isn't lined with the prison fencing is open to charges of gross negligence if debris kills or injures someone in the supposedly "cold" areas. Why? Because the events at Charlotte and MIS demonstrate that fencing below a certain height is insufficient to prevent debris from injuring spectators.
And it is the improbable that drives the cost. That's the very definition of insurance! You insure for the RARE events. If I know with CERTAINTY that my house will burn down every third year, then it isn't fire insurance - it's called a savings account.
Solo events are by definition NON-SPECTATOR.
The video posted earlier demonstrates NOTHING unless and until you provide evidence that this was an SCCA-sanctioned event.
Head-to-head competition increases the likelihood of a medical payout. How many drivers get transported to the hospital at a Solo versus Club Racing? Use your experience with the Club as the basis of your rants.
You bring up the subject of gross liability. I only mentioned that H2H and high speeds increase the probability of a payout and the amount of the payout. Evidence? Have you EVER been at a race? Have you ever been at a Solo?
Think about it... which has a greater likelihood of generating a medical claim - a collision at 30MPH or a collision at 140MPH? Which is likely to cause the greatest damage to the driver - a 30MPH collision or a 140MPH collision?
As for the issue of medical insurance being secondary...Hardly! Many people do not have medical insurance - look around in the paddock. Medical insurance often has annual caps on payout. It has co-pays/deductibles which, I believe, the SCCA insurance pays. It has lifetime caps. It does not cover LTC beyond 30 days (typically). April 2006, we had a corner worker fall out of a tub and break his leg. He just (Dec 2006) had more surgery. Given the nature of his injuries - he is entitled to LTC coverage. His medical reimbursement policy DOESN'T cover that, but, I believe, SCCA's needs to.
Point is moot as it has nothing to do with the event insurance.
Since it is clear that you are so unhappy with the way the organization is run, the decisions made by the various committees that are staffed by its members and believe that the people who staff the events have it "out" for you and family... why don't you just quit and go race with another club until you get peeved at them too?
WOOO guys. I believe Matt is really just asking for disclosure from the club. His method leaves something to be desired. But I to would like full disclosure from the club were my money goes also. I to am so beyond pissed off that we gave money to Pro again also. Its time the club inspires a little confidence in its membership by showing us were the money goes in the uncooked version of the books. And anyone who has run a business knows that all books spend a little time on the stove. To think different is just foolish.
Chris Howard
Chris Howard
Chris, when things are slow in Matt's business he finds a new SCCA subject to rag about. Within one of has bitch fests 
he was going to bisect FL. from the U.S. & start his own club. 
Have Fun
David
ps: Face to face he really is a great guy. & loves his brewskis. His presentation skills are suited to the type business he operates.
he was going to bisect FL. from the U.S. & start his own club. Have Fun
David
ps: Face to face he really is a great guy. & loves his brewskis. His presentation skills are suited to the type business he operates.