A fair bit of uncertainty surrounds the impact of this judgment, not least around whether a racing circuit is open to the public.
The aim, though, is to ensure that if - in the case of motorsport - you suffer damage or injuries due to a negligent competitor, then there will be funds available.
It's not clear that the insurance sector has been challenged - beyond just accepting that "this is uninsurable".
The MSA Master Policy offers no protection at all in this case.
The insurance sector has never been slow at offering a product once it becomes "compulsory".
The more frequently a driver competes and the worse the penalty record, the higher the premium. Some individual drivers might become uninsurable - would that be a bad thing?
Rather than argue against compulsory insurance (and treating the competitors as "expendable - they know the risks"), shouldn't the MSA support the concept (by protecting competitors against negligent drivers, it should only improve driving standards).
Something for the ABkC to debate at its AGM....?
|
|