Found this wording in a policy today.

[stu]

I am looking through the exclusions of a specific Montana policy and I found this exact wording. This is just an example of an exclusion in a policy, this is probably a pretty common one. Might want to check and see if your policy has a similar exclusion.

C. We do not provide Liability Coverage for any
“insured” for “bodily injury” or “property damage”
arising out of the use of a vehicle in any organized
activity involving:
1. Racing;
2. Speeding;
3. Stunting; or
4. Demolition.
This Exclusion (C.) includes practice or
preparation for any such activity.

[Nate]

So if they can prove you were organized speeding they can deny your claim? Is that on a bike policy?

If anyone has a tape of you in a demolition derby, try to make sure your insurance doesn't get ahold of it when you ask for a new car.

[saabracr]

Organized activity involving speeding?

So for instance, if a couple cars are caravaning on a road trip going 85mph in a 75mph zone, and one or both get in a wreck involving another vehicle, the insurance company for the car(s) at fault isn't liable?

I'm not quite sure I understand.

[M@]

Pretty sure this applies to race tracks, and auto crossing type of deals.

[Weston-work]

The key phrase here is "organized activity". Obviously, racing on a track would not be covered, and it would seem that they wouldn't cover "organized" street racing either, but this doesn't seem to exclude you if you're doing a driving school or other non-competitive event on a race track, such as HPDE. Allstate and now Progressive both have a similar exclusion, but they simply say that whatever happens at a race track is not covered, so it doesn't matter if it's a competitive event or not.

[stu]

It also stipulates that practicing for an organized event is not covered either. That's important because that isn't competitive, or even racing (if it's time trials) either.

The speeding one is tricky Andy. It is vaguely worded on purpose. My guess is that if you were in the situation that you described, it would be pretty difficult to deny the claim. Vague wording can work to the benefit of the insurance company, but all it can take is a good attorney to convince a judge or jury otherwise, especially if it's a judge or jury that doesn't like insurance companies.


Nate: This is on a personal auto policy. In a few other places on this particular policy, it states that vehicles with less than 4 wheels, or ones that are used mostly off road are excluded. I can only assume that means dirt bikes, ATVs, and 6 wheeled vehicles.

[M@]

So, unorganized street racing is covered? :D

[stu]

Yeah. I don't know if it would be worth taking something to court over the definition of organized versus unorganized. If there was a death it might be worth it though.

[Nate]

I'm just thinking they could probably almost deny or atleast attempt to deny an accident on a "meet day" where a bunch of people organize for a drive in the mountains.

They could probably use our own forum to show that these days usually consist of speeding, and were organized.

It might be a strech, but they word that stuff like that on purpose.

[stu]

I would say that in most cases that wouldn't happen. However if you happen to have a real fucking asshole as the adjuster (or their manager is an asshole) then it is entirely reasonable that the adjuster would try to deny.

I really don't think that it would fly though, because what is the difference between organizing lunch and having 4 people in your car and organizing lunch and having 8 people in two cars? Just because you are organized to go some where, shouldn't automatically mean that the risk of an accident will go up.

[Mario]

+1 for why insurance companies suck. :)

I would love to see someone pursue this with their agent, and see what they say. Then ask for it in writing and see how happy they'd be to accommodate for you. :)

[stu]

Agents don't really have anything to do with this. Agents just sell the policy. An agent can call me and act all badass, but the decision is all mine.

[Weston]

I see it's spam season. :rolleyes:

[f03ranger]

We have similar exclusions on our mechanical breakdown contracts. Be aware that adjusters and investigators do and will look into suspicious claims on the typical 'street racer' vehicles.

[f03ranger]

And please, if you are street or even track racing, don't throw pics and vids of it all over Myspace, MSN Space, etc. People always act surprised when we use their own webpages against them.

[Street_Kings]

Hi f03, nice to have you :)

The "preparation" part scares me. Would changing out your tires for slicks and having a tree fall on it void your claim since putting a non street legal race only part on would constitute "preparing" for a race?

[Brandon]

Depends, is the car in the woods and did anyone hear the tree fall? If so and if not then did the tree really fall?

[f03ranger]

That would be a tough fight, since the vehicle wasn't being driven when the damage took place. I'm thinking that would exclude accidents with the vehicle being driven with off-road, or extreme modifications, already installed.

[stu]

You wouldn't run into a coverage issue for putting slicks onto your car. A tree falling on it is sudden and accidental. It also has nothing to do with what you were doing.