TT 2023

[finlo]

6 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

It's not very competitive at all. In mainstream markets there's lots of brands but a tiny number of underwriters, in more niche markets there's just a tiny number of underwriters.

The risk hasn't doubled in a year, nor have personal injury payouts. Like with so much of our current inflation, it's less about cost and more about price gouging.

And boy aren't plenty filling their boots while they've got scapegoats!

[0bserver]

Good to see the developments in Northern Ireland. 

Raise the prices for TT as there will be more people desperate to see it now.

[A fool and his money.....]

1 hour ago, Ghost Ship said:

Well it hasn't worked in Northern Ireland, has it?  They won't get any premiums so they can't profit from raising them.

They're not interested in insuring against anything vaguely risky, the just want to charge ever increasing premiums to safe bets. 

Motor insurance is a prime example of this, try and insure a 16 year old on anything bigger than a milk float and you won't be able to - despite the fact that customer would be willing, possibly even expecting to pay thousands for the policy. Whereas someone like myself, who's be driving for nearly 40 years and never made a claim, they're only too happy to take my money and put the premiums up by much more than inflation every year. You have to chase them for the policy documents every year without fail and despite specifically asking them to the remove the auto-renewal thing every year for at least the last decade, not one company has done so even once.

Insurance companies are just about the least ethical, most self serving and greedy industry there is. They're parasites, they produce nothing. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to make a claim, as an elderly family member of mine was recently, their behaviour in trying to get out of paying out is staggeringly dishonourable, they'll stop at nothing. I once cancelled a motor insurance policy about one month after taking it out as I was going to be working away for the rest of the year - they refunded less than ten percent of the cost, having first removing excessive administration, cakes for the office and a new set of tyres for the bosses Porsche charges.

[CallMeCurious]

6 hours ago, x-in-man said:

Dog poo painters

or polishers

 

[CallMeCurious]

3 hours ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

Lightbulb moment- if they tell all TT riders to not crash into the crowd or other people’s property or ride the wrong way back via Ballig then Insurance premiums stay low - problem solved thank you.

And stop any member of the public from staying in their own property if it's within 100m of the course or under the flight path of the helicopters. Then remove the spectators jsut telivise on big screens on the prom and in the pubs (not on the course) . Bingo.. no public no need for public liability insurance. 😝

[Happier diner]

8 hours ago, CallMeCurious said:

And stop any member of the public from staying in their own property if it's within 100m of the course or under the flight path of the helicopters. Then remove the spectators jsut telivise on big screens on the prom and in the pubs (not on the course) . Bingo.. no public no need for public liability insurance. 😝

I know you are jesting, but PI or PL insurance is not for this kind of thing as far as I know. It's about someone sueing you for negligence isn't it?

If you organise an event the participants will sign away their rights to claim off you for their injuries. However you still have some duty of care and must take all reasonable steps to keep them safe. Obviously in motorcycle racing there is a high chance of injury and death and the participants have to accept this. Making it as safe as is reasonably practicable is a tough one to get your head around but something that insurers understand.

An example of where this might be challenged is, if say, there was a horrific accident at a place, and then just 2 days later the same horrific accident. As an organiser you would have a duty of care in this circumstance to do all that was reasonably practicable to prevent a reoccurrence. This is why I worry about the terrible accidents at Bray Hill lat year. Have we done all that is reasonably practical to prevent it happening again?

One day someone will make a PI claim based on negligence. If its successful (which is a big 'if' I agree) that will be the end.

[John Wright]

17 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

I know you are jesting, but PI or PL insurance is not for this kind of thing as far as I know. It's about someone sueing you for negligence isn't it?

If you organise an event the participants will sign away their rights to claim off you for their injuries. However you still have some duty of care and must take all reasonable steps to keep them safe. Obviously in motorcycle racing there is a high chance of injury and death and the participants have to accept this. Making it as safe as is reasonably practicable is a tough one to get your head around but something that insurers understand.

An example of where this might be challenged is, if say, there was a horrific accident at a place, and then just 2 days later the same horrific accident. As an organiser you would have a duty of care in this circumstance to do all that was reasonably practicable to prevent a reoccurrence. This is why I worry about the terrible accidents at Bray Hill lat year. Have we done all that is reasonably practical to prevent it happening again?

One day someone will make a PI claim based on negligence. If its successful (which is a big 'if' I agree) that will be the end.

Not sure your analysis is correct.

First, participants are required to have their own insurances for injury, medical care,  death, etc, as part of entry, sign up and participation.

Second, PL isn’t just negligence, it includes things like nuisance, bring something dangerous onto land you control ( the course ) and it escapes and causes damage to spectators or property adjoining the course, and you’re liable, as organiser. You can’t get people to sign away their rights.

That brings us back to the issue of competitors and repeated incidents at the same spot or identical circumstances, if it can be proved the track was unsafe ( by track standards - Bray Hill ) or wrong procedures were used ( sending competitors the wrong way around the course ).

These are specialised insurances, not something you can pop into Kestrel or Tower for. Specialist brokers, Lloyds syndicates, reinsurance. The market will be sensitive to claims history, not just of specific claims, but sport wide. A couple of bad years and premiums will shoot.

[0bserver]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Not sure your analysis is correct.

First, participants are required to have their own insurances for injury, medical care,  death, etc, as part of entry, sign up and participation.

Second, PL isn’t just negligence, it includes things like nuisance, bring something dangerous onto land you control ( the course ) and it escapes and causes damage to spectators or property adjoining the course, and you’re liable, as organiser. You can’t get people to sign away their rights.

That brings us back to the issue of competitors and repeated incidents at the same spot or identical circumstances, if it can be proved the track was unsafe ( by track standards - Bray Hill ) or wrong procedures were used ( sending competitors the wrong way around the course ).

These are specialised insurances, not something you can pop into Kestrel or Tower for. Specialist brokers, Lloyds syndicates, reinsurance. The market will be sensitive to claims history, not just of specific claims, but sport wide. A couple of bad years and premiums will shoot.

Government are so desperate for TT to continue that they will pick up the tab for everything.

Good to see insurers are wising up though. 

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

Not sure your analysis is correct.

First, participants are required to have their own insurances for injury, medical care,  death, etc, as part of entry, sign up and participation.

Second, PL isn’t just negligence, it includes things like nuisance, bring something dangerous onto land you control ( the course ) and it escapes and causes damage to spectators or property adjoining the course, and you’re liable, as organiser. You can’t get people to sign away their rights.

That brings us back to the issue of competitors and repeated incidents at the same spot or identical circumstances, if it can be proved the track was unsafe ( by track standards - Bray Hill ) or wrong procedures were used ( sending competitors the wrong way around the course ).

These are specialised insurances, not something you can pop into Kestrel or Tower for. Specialist brokers, Lloyds syndicates, reinsurance. The market will be sensitive to claims history, not just of specific claims, but sport wide. A couple of bad years and premiums will shoot.

My analysis is correct. So is yours though. I have organised many events and had to clarify aspects with our insurers. Yes there is more than negligence, but that's the issue/risk with TT. Imo of course.

[0bserver]

1 minute ago, Happier diner said:

My analysis is correct. So is yours though. I have organised many events and had to clarify aspects with our insurers. Yes there is more than negligence, but that's the issue/risk with TT. Imo of course.

Negligence could never occur at the TT, it's such a professionally run operation.

[Non-Believer]

Irish short circuits impacted too it would appear..?

 

[joebean]

Contrary to some of the opinions here, I am grateful that the insurance companies have, for so long, been willing to provide cover for such risk-laden events. The Insurance industry is not a charity; it exists to make a profit by providing a service, the cost of which is based on an assessment of risk. I find it surprising that so many people still think that you can require competitors or spectators to sign away their rights. You can’t. Neither can you rely on injured parties to take the view that it’s the TT so they accept that it’s risky and they won’t claim. They do. So do competitors. The insurance premiums will rise in accordance with the risks and likely liabilities arising from the risk and the company will still expect a reasonable prospect of making a profit. If they don’t see that prospect, why would they insure? Would you? Many road racing “supporters” remain blinded by their enthusiasm for the sport. Most of the commercial concerns that are relied upon to make the event happen have to go into it with their eyes wide open. So do the organisers. 

[Non-Believer]

A "Rule of Thumb"?

The faster they go, the bigger a crash is likely to be.

The bigger the crash, the more serious the injuries are likely to be.

The more serious the injuries, the bigger the claims are likely to be.

The bigger the claims, the bigger the premiums get.

Until......

[0bserver]

Can we get a "they've been saying that since 1907"? 

I'm waiting for a comparison with insurance for climbing Mount Everest.

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

A "Rule of Thumb"?

The faster they go, the bigger a crash is likely to be.

The bigger the crash, the more serious the injuries are likely to be.

The more serious the injuries, the bigger the claims are likely to be.

The bigger the claims, the bigger the premiums get.

Until......

But only if the crash is the fault of the organisers…