the latest buzz has been an insurance co dropping its policy holders for auto insurance that were found to be autocrossing. what is everyones feeling on this? has anyone here been affected by this?
-spenc

 

It's unforunate, but many insurance companies have fallen on hard times. There are a limited number of large reinsurers and most of them sustained heavy losses from 9/11.

I do find it somewhat strange if they're targeting autocross. I don't doubt that they have losses, but this, and the idea that it's a safe pasttime are contradictory.

On second though... I wonder if they've established some correlation between autocrossers and aggressive street driving?

 

autocrossing?
man that sucks.
id understand more if it was regular HPDE participants



[Modified by Kamin, 12:12 AM 12/20/2002]

 

This discussion has been going on for years. I remember a very lengthy discussion on the team.net autocross forum about "big brother" watching or something like that. Ultimately, it was decided that 99.9% of all insurance policies forbid any form of "competition" where there is "timing or scoring." That's autocross. Ironically, that's not HPDEs. Go figure...

 

oh thats true no timing (unless you do it yourself) at hpde
forgot about that.

 

I haven't heard anything about dropping autocrossers from insurance, but one interesting tidbit I've heard is that research shows that helacious behavior on the part of insurance companies is much more strongly tied to variations in the bond market than in the claims they pay out. Research done on the medical malpractice insurance ( http://www.insurance-reform.org/StableLosses.pdf ) strongly indicates that the whole "Rates rise because we have to pay out so much in claims!" arguement is largely false, at least in the case of malpractice insurance realm.. I'd expect that other forms of insurance are not so different.

Anyway, as I understand it, the policies disallow claims made as a result of timed/competitive events.. it does not forbid the person from engaging in them.

A little bit of uninformed commentary meant as food for thought.. ideas for further investigation.

edit: clarification


[Modified by MechE00, 4:18 AM 12/20/2002]

 

Not exactly true.

Me: "There was an incident with my car while autocrossing, *will* USAA cover it?"

USAA: " What's autocrossing?"

Me: Describes autocrossing.

USAA: "We will not tell you if it is covered unless you file a claim, also, you are required by law to notify us when something happens to your car, so even if you don't file the claim, we are within our legal rights to raisee your rates anyhow."

Me: *thinking* "Well, I'm going to drop these ****** anyhow, so I might as well file the claim."

Claim filed, covered in full.

USAA: "We don't cover autocross, but it was *our* mistake that we insured you at all, so we are paying this claim becaues it was our mistake."

Me: "Whatever you shorsighted morons."

USAA: "Due to your high risk driving, we will no longer be able to offer you *comprehensive* or *collision* coverage on _ANY_ vehicle you own.

Me: "Please cancel my policy you ******."

Me: "Hello, USAA Financial Services? Please cancel all my accounts because your auto insurance people are ******."

Me: "Hello, USAA Homeowners insurance? Please cancel my policy because your auto folks are ******."

Me: "Hello, Earthlink? Get that Damn USAA front page off of my comuter (it was default based on my email) or I will cancel my DSL. USAA is a crap company, and you would best reconsider your business affiliation with them."

Etc.

So, according to USAA, the specifcally don't cover it and *shouldn't* cover you or any of your vehicles if you participate (presumably while driving one of the USAA insured vehicles). They never did produce a copy of my policy that forbit any form of competition, but it was easier to switch to another company that waste my time arguing. USA didn't want to do business with me, so I took it elsewhere.

Scott

 

I am insured by Allstate, who lost $$$ in the 9/11 thing...so now my rates went up 30% because of something I didn't have anything to do with. I pay a certain rate based upon my risk to the insurance company and I drive as safe as ever but yet my rates went up! WTF? Isn't it great these ****** can get away with this. I didn't cause those buildings to fall, so go get your money from Al Quaeda. I liken it to the CEO of a huge company getting his $50 Mil bonus the same day he lays off 1000 employees cuz the company isn't making enough money.

disclaimer: before anyone thinks about commenting that I am heartless because of what happened in NYC and now I don't wanna pay more ins. bla bla bla...the point I am making is that something totaly unrelated to my risk to the insurance co. caused my rates to rise.

 

Why is anyone surprised at this? Insurance companies are not there for your "protection" or your benefit. They have inserted themselves into legislation, making it law to pay them money. You cannot have a drivers license without carrying insurance. EVEN IF you never file a claim. You CANNOT own a home without a homeowners policy. etc., etc.
No, it's not our fault that the asshats who flew a plane into a building is costing them money, but dammed if they aren't going to make it back up somewhere. And if you don't like it, they will make it a law. (which they have already done).
Besides, they have mortgages and nice, expensive cars too. They need to make payments on those. You are depriving the rich of all the trappings of being rich if you don't pay up. Seriously, gotta keep the wheels of the economy turning now. Get in line...
/rant

 

I bet you can, you just can't have a mortgage on that home.

Even so, I do agree with you. Insurance companis are *for* profit, and they seem to be willing to do whatevery they possibly can to make a profit.

Scott

 

I think that's a pretty specious arguement to make... I am also insured by Allstate, and my rates are largely unchanged in the past 1 1/2 years. My annual premiums are actually a few dollars less than they were in 2001.

Your rates went up because your policy's risk classification changed - Not because of your insurer paying out claims for a disaster.

Andrew

 

Hmmm... I just added an 89 Legend beater to my policy as a commuter car. $346 per year. Cheapest car insurance I've ever had. (For reference, I also insure a 92 Protege for $360 per year, my GSR is $670 (comprehensive) a year and my 02 Oddysey is $650 (comprehensive) a year).

I've seen no rise in insurance rates since 9/11.

 

I'm not sure why everyone *expects* their car insruance company to cover racing/hpde incidents. This is NOT (IMHO) what they are signing up for when they offer (yes, offer) coverage to you. They cover everyday driving. Wrecks on the public streets, if a tree falls on your car in a storm, etc. Dumpsters at autocrosses, tirewalls at the track, etc are NOT what they signed up for. You might be able to get them to cover it once (like Scott did with USAA), but if you do please EXPECT what happened to Scott to happen to you, with any insurance company (unless perhaps you are related to your agent). The claim you just made, expecially if you tell them it's a "non-street" incident, is above what they thought they were signed up for (again, see Scott's example). We've all heard "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." The insurance company is not likely to let you fool them twice. If it were me, I'd drop you too.

The way I look at it is this... If I damage my car on the autocross course, or no track, that's my liability. I need to cover that, not my insurance company. (Which I did when I hit the tire wall.) Now *perhaps* if I totaled my car, I'd put in a claim, but I would *expect* to be dropped from coverage after the claim, whether the insurance company paid it or not.

Does this make sense to anyone else but me? Come on people, let's take responsibility for the risks we take when we race/track a car. That's not the insurance company's responsibility. If you can't afford to take that responsibility, then perhaps you need to reevaluate whether you should really be racing/tracking that car after all.

r2x

 

You are 100% correct.

 

I totally agree. If you file a claim on this, you should expect the obvious and well-practiced reaction by the insurance company of dropping your *** like a hot rock.
Which is why I carry minimum coverage on my Civic, and would pay for anything out of pocket. (Granted, the insured value is less than the invested).

And how many claims have you filed? My bet is that your yearly to them is at least 10 times what they pay back to you in the event of an accident. Right before they drop you from the policy, or hike up your rates.

In direct contrast, I watched my ins. co. hike my rates on my Integra *30 percent* a year, with my having never filed a claim, or having a traffic ticket. This was on a 5 year old car, then 6, then 7, then sold.


[Modified by madhatter, 10:30 AM 12/20/2002]

 

Diane is spot on as usuall. She had a great I deal at lunch one day. Instaed of paying full coverage on your car, pay minum , put the extra $ in the bank, so when if you have an icident you might just have enough money in the bank to pay for the damage.
My Agent has told me that the would coever an icident @ a Driving School whether it be on a track or what, however any even where timming is taken you are not covered.

 

I heard a feature about the bond market relationship on NPR this week, and thought it was really interesting. Basically, when bonds are netting a weak return, insurers don't feel like they have to compete for your business. When the bond rate is high, they go ga-ga trying to get your dough, so they can invest "the float".

Nothing happens in a vacuum and things are ALWAYS more complicated than the picture painted for general public consumption. Like, "Oh, gee, we can't help it - the price of gas is going up because of the price of crude oil..." Or the war. Oops - did I say that out loud?

Kirk

 

The latter part of this thread has gone slightly off-topic. I don't think anyone here thinks that their insurance should cover them for autocross-related accidents.

I "think" SOLOef was originally talking about the story of an insurance company in the northeast that sent out policy cancellation letters to autocrossers after matching names/vehicles from autocross results listings. To me, it sounded like they were hunting down autocrossers and cancelling their policies, even though they may have never filed a claim. This has been discussed in length on my local SCCA regions messageboard. I personally dont think its anything to worry about...yet.


[Modified by Brett@SoloRacer.com, 8:13 AM 12/20/2002]

 

But names and cars on a results page mean nothing. Just because it has your name next to a red civic does not mean that red civic is the one they insure. You could have borrowed a friends car that just happens to be the same year, color and make. I can't say I would have fought it, if my insurance company wanted to drop me for autox I would spend my money elsewhere.

 

Exactly, thats the point. But evidently, an insurance company did do this. It kinda sounds like an urban legend to me, but I've heard from a few people that this actually did happen. And I agree, if my insurance company did this, I would just take my business elsewhere. I guess the problem comes when all the insurance companies start doing it, thus making us unable to autocross our street cars. This is something I doubt (and hope) will ever happen.

 

Just one more off topic comment to this post. I hate to see people accept 9/11 as the excuse for insurance compaines raising their rates.

Do some research and you'll see that insurance companies are doing great in the post 9/11 environment -- "terrorist insurance" is a BOON. Warren Buffet is investing heavily in insurance (Birkshire Hathaway owns controlling majority of GEICO, and all or parts of about 5 other insurance companies).

This is my problem with insurance companies -- If I owned an insurance company, of COURSE I would only insure people who wouldn't make claims if I had the choice. Duh. But since having insurance is REQUIRED by LAW and Insurance companies are very profiltable, how can they be allowed to choose who they insure from high level policy position?

Of course, Mr 5th DUI Loser shouldn't be able to get insurance, that's not my point, my point is Mr. Auto-X or Mr. HPDE (or Ms ) might make a minimal % more claims then the average Joe Blow consumer, but you take the good with the bad. Isn't this just another form of "racial profiling"?!

Sure HPDE/Auto-X is a "higher" risk activity, but so is "drive like a blind sheep". Eliminating HPDE/A-X coverage is just a way to reduce costs.

-- %My_Insurance_Corp has been great to me, paid for my totalled ITR (HPDE Event), so I have no reason to complain. But damned if they can control the laws, give the cops laser guns so they can increase our rates, complain when we try and improve our driving skills (because it just isn't profitable -- get a minivan and use cruise control), and then drop us when they hear we attend HPDE or Auto-X.

There is something very wrong with this country when we allow Corporations to control our lives and laws!!! BTW, there are some compelling arguments to be made that the "corporation" is the new Alpha organism on planet earth -- think about it.

<-- Getting off soapbox.

(edit: grammar be fun)



[Modified by SpiceyRice, 3:04 PM 12/20/2002]

 

how many people have been effected by this?

Also, i do agree that if you bust up your car at an hpde or auto-x, it is your fault.

But for insurance companies to drop people because they auto-x is BS IMO.

Mike

 

I had "heard" this story a few months ago. Not sure if this thread pertains to a "new" incident or maybe it's the same one that happened before?

Anyhow, from what I recall, the insurance company dropped 2 autocrossers, but it was unclear whether it was specifically because they autocrossed. Apparently, these 2 drivers had not-so-great driving records with either numerous tickets or numerous claims. Does anyone else remember something that sounds like this story?

 

Let's start using "code name" when we go autoX

 

can I be speed racer?!