71 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHWHOA!! Great call from my insurance co about DE's
Reported or suspected cause
usually in the wording of the exclusion
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
The problem is usually in the wording of the exclusion.
Leading evidence: 'usually in the wording of the exclusion' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'usually in the wording of the exclusion' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Check after an incident' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Replace "the exclusion regarding racing and speed contests
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
"The exclusion regarding racing and speed contests has been changed to state that there is no coverage while a vehicle is:
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
In short, it shouldn't make any of us track drivers more comfortable in the least, and the analysis I set forth remains just as valid.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I mean, do you guys really think the agent that sold you the policy is the guy that decides if you get a big fat check after an incident?
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
It's at the point now that my insurance agent just transfers me directly to the insurance company when I have questions or changes - they do nothing now that the policy is sold.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
71 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T171335Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
First off, my insurance is through State Farm. We have been with them for years. I have no accidents on my record nor any major tickets or infractions.
With that said, I asked my agent to inquire about coverage at Driver Education / Driver Event (on track) type of events. I specifically said - NO RACING is involved.
She called the regional office, claims and anyone else she could think of.
Result: I am covered.
HOW 'BOUT THEM APPLES!!!
Wow...I have to honestly say, we have been VERY happy with State Farm and will continue to carry their insurance for as long as we can.
Thought you guys might like to know...
C.
State Farm said the same thing when I asked about coverage on DEs.
Though, off record, if there was an incident on the track I would be dropped after payment is made.
Learned that the hard way with another insurance company. In the end it would've been cheaper for me to pay out of pocket (8k damages, single car), due to the increase in premiums I enjoyed for the next 3 or so years with my "new" carrier, since I had to move all 5 cars over. This was after using them for the last 10 years with zero accidents and the occasional speeding ticket.
+1....my State Farm agent advised me the same. Will drop me like a ton of bricks if a claim is submitted from a track event.
"No Racing" is defined as an untimed event.
Best,
J
I asked my Farmer's agent if I was covered for DE events. He told me that he would no longer be my agent when my policy came up for renewal and then lectured me on the dangers of driving fast. True story.
Chad, we have State Farm (15+ years) and we have everything under them (house, cars, boat and life), and I too plan on doing DE events as you know.
So this is good news about DE coverage, but are you going to contact them about something in writing ?
I have not contacted my agent about this yet until I am at that point.
Chad...I won't refute it...my State Farm agent basically told me it's a 1 and out situation. Basically I could make my claim and it would be paid and then I woud be promptly dropped from the company. I work for a competing company that has different views however which is the main reason I'm still with State Farm. However if any incident ever really happens I'd have to evaluate the cost / value analysis of paying out of pocket.
+1 Additionally, carefully read your policy. Many companies have introduced new wording into their policies that specifically excludes DE. If State Farm used such wording that would almost certainly beat anything taken verbally.
Here is some additional info;
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...m+DE+exclusion
(see last post)
https://rennlist.com/forums/showthre...m+DE+exclusion
Wow, that's a little negative. I think most are just trying to help ensure you don't make a mistake.
If you are truly covered that's great news! I'd just be sure before you bet the farm (or in this case the car) on it.
Did I mention, I love my "sig".....
The only place "in writing" that counts is the policy itself. Nothing you have from an agent stating you are covered is going to make a difference when it is time to make a claim. If it is not specifically excluded in the policy, you are covered. The problem is usually in the wording of the exclusion. For Farmer's, it's pretty plain english that DE is not excluded. For Progressive, driving on the racetrack even for parade laps is excluded.
Exactly. It's already in writing. The policy itself surely contains the language that will allow or disallow any such claim. In a dispute, that's the contract that will govern your claim.
It may be possible that written representations from an authorized representative of the insurer could modify the policy, especially if you reasonably rely on them, but I'm not sure. I am sure that the language of the policy will control, all other things being equal.
Just came from my state farm agent now...had to drop off proof that I turned in plates on a car I just sold. She told me the same thing I mentioned above. "yes Jon....we'll cover the loss, but headquarters will re-evalutate your policies...and in all likelihood would drop all of your auto policies..."
So....be careful out there!
J
I don't have it handy...but I will tell you this. In Georgia, a verbal agreement will hold up in court. I made point to document the date, time and what my agent said. Which was..."I have spoken to our claims department as well as the regional head office. They fully understand what you are doing with the club events and...(she made a point to say) you ARE covered."
I'll see what I can do to find my policy this evening. (We just reorganized our papers....the wifey will know where it is.)
C.
Believe me, I appreciate the sentiment. Also know that I am a measure twice, cut once kinda guy. And, I will be making an attempt to get this in writing.
C.
This is the current language in my State Farm Policy.
"The exclusion regarding racing and speed contests has been changed to state that there is no coverage while a vehicle is:
a. off public roads and being prepared for, used in practice for , or operated in any racing, speed, hill-climbing, jumping, or similar contest; or
b. on a track designed primarily for racing or high-speed driving"
So State Farm Clearly will not pay a claim for a Drivers Education incident.
I'm not a Georgia lawyer, but that's not your situation. You don't have a verbal agreement. In your situation, you have an
oral
assurance about the terms of a
written
agreement. If the oral assurance is in contradiction to the written contract, I think you're out of luck, at least as I read
Andrews v. Skinner
, 158 Ga. App. 229 (1981).
It says, "Under the rules of construction set forth in Code Ann. � 20-704 (1) parol evidence is admissible to explain an ambiguity in a written contract, although such evidence is inadmissible to add to, take from, or vary the writing itself."
With luck, the agent was both truthful and correct, and your policy spells out that it
does
cover a DE. Or, next best case, it is silent on the topic, in which case the conversation with your agent may be admissible. (But you might not need it because ambiguities are likely to be construed against the drafter.)
Don't mistake me: I hope your agent is right. I just don't want you counting on something that isn't accurate.
Read your policy
.
CP
That's not a verbal agreement--that's an insurance agent interpreting a written policy. I wouldn't place much--er, ANY--faith in that. There's no way a reputable insurance company would base their policies on anything that comes out of an agent's mouth.
Ignoring that, I'll let you guess as to the value of a verbal agreement in court. People tend to get a little forgetful when things like that come up.
I tend to agree, although there's some room for amibiguity there (definition of the terms, e.g.). But if that's what the policy says, I recommend you operate under the assumption that you have
no
coverage for a DE.
Let me play devil's advocate here.
I say it is irrelevant.
If having insurance coverage is a legal imperative to drive on public streets, then it would be foolhardy to submit a claim for any track accident to any insurance company, even if they pay the first claim. Why?
Well, you have no option but to buy insurance. So, if they jack up the rate on you, and they most likely will, you are screwed. ANY time you think about submitting a claim to your insurance, before you submit, you should ask how it would impact your rates. In fact, you should not even reveal that you are considering whether to submit a claim, because many automobile policies REQUIRE you to report incidents, so they could count you as having a wreck (for policy rating purposes) even if you do not provide them with ANY details. So, you should say you are comparing policies, and ask what the impact on your policy would be if you "X" You could be shocked.
And that is the best that could happen to you. Worse yet, they could drop you. If they drop you, you are in a world of hurt. Why? Because other reputable companies may not take you. You may have to go to a high risk company that will charge you far more and, potentially, be much more uncooperative if you ever need a payout.
So, if you are going to track your car, you should either be financially sound enough that you can take any accidents (assume a total loss) without submitting a claim to your street insurance, or you should purchase track insurance and not even consider that you have street insurance.
Now I am sure that a few guys will pipe up and say that they submitted claims without any problems. Well, if you want to take that risk, good for you. I would never do so.
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that it is different from company to company and from state to state. I have State Farm just next door in NJ and I have no clue how I am covered. When I asked my agent she told me the standard dogma I've heard all over, State Farm covers the vehicle for driving schools (she specifically mentioned BMW driving schools), but not racing which involves timed events. She seemed to think a DE was covered if it was not timed. I asked for all of this in writing and she sent me the NJ Standard Car Policy which I read cover to cover and the only place it mentions anything remotely related to the subject at hand is where for Death, Dismemberment and Loss of Sight "Coverage does not apply to ...An Insured while ... Occupying any ... Vehicle while being used in a race." As far as I can read there is no mention of racing, speed, track use or anything else anywhere else in the policy. It might be hidden in some obscure endorsement notice, but I can't find it.
I'm not sure there's any need for fireworks; the simple fact that this thread exists proves that there's a lot of questions regarding this topic.
One thing I know for sure: I wouldn't take anyone's verbal word for it. I'd want it in writing in my policy with as few ambiguous terms as possible. I'd also question exactly what most people consider "racing", i.e. if I told my mother-in-law that I was taking my 996 to the track for a DE, she'd immediately refer to that as "racing". As unfortunate as it is, if a "reasonable person" can't completely distinguish between DE or a random track event and "racing", you could easily have trouble, even if it's obvious to you.
I'm just not the kind of guy that takes chances with stuff like this, and a conversation with my agent would do little to quell my concerns.
+1 - I agree completely with what TD has said here.
I have never taken a car on track which I wasn't prepared to fully self insure. That is not to say that I wouldn't file a claim in the event of an accident, but for my own piece of mind I need to know that I can comfortably cover ANY possible expense on my own.
Insurance companies do not stay in business by paying every claim that hits their desks. IMHO, if you are totally reliant upon your street ins. to cover a worst case scenario incident, you are playing with fire. Tracking can be tremendously fun but along with that can come tremendous expenses.
I think this may be key for Chad. There is plenty of evidence from various threads on Rennlist that there is big variation from State to State (among policies from the same company).
Maybe Dell can chime in, but I thought I read that North Carolina for example has some policy differences.
It really depends on the specific wording in Chad's policy.
All this talk about whether you are coverged for repairs when expeiencing an accident at a DE is such a small piece of your risk. The cost to repair your car has a maximum. Liability has no limit. Unless you have extensive liability coverage that will cover you at these events, you're either foolish or have nothing to lose.
I'm not sure I understand your intent. I thought you would appreciate friendly and helpful advice from people who have had experience in the area, who sell insurance, or who are attorneys. Sorry if I was wrong.
In any event, if you get into a coverage fight with an insurance company, good luck trying to rely upon a verbal assurance by an adjustor or salesperson.
Correct...every state is going to be different. NC, TX and CA in particular are drastic departures from the Norm when it comes to insurance guidelines.
Andy
Differences are not only state by state, but carrier to carrier. No fireworks intended, just think that relying on an agent's spoken word is not going to get you very far. Read your policy. You said to the agent that there will be no racing involved. His interpretation of racing, yours, and the one in your policy (under exclusions) may be vastly different. 1999Porsche911's comment about liability being the greater risk is also very valid.
Just my .02.
Stefan
No disrespect intended. Lately, regardless of what credible information I come up with, the "internet egos" come out to prove it wrong.
Yes, I am getting this in writing (as I mentioned). Yes, I ALWAYS cover my *** 9 ways to Sunday.
In addition, with all the extra mods I am presently working on my car, and the information that I am finding out on the 3.4L, I am VERY hesitant about posting my findings. The funny thing is much of the research and information is coming from a former Factory Race Team Technician. Much like the original post here, I am trying help...not starting a debate.
I would think that the folks out would realize, I asked the question because a lot of companies are simply not covering folks at DE's (as mentioned in the thread on numerous occasions). I had told my agent, that if State Farm did not cover me, I want to have specific coverage added for my weekend DE's. Her response - "I will check with, and if we don't...we will find the proper source to write up a policy."
All in all, I was prepared to add additional, seasonal coverage. Simply put, pay more money to make sure I was covered.
Yes...I am getting this in writing. Yes, I have double checked with them. What I don't appreciate are the patronizing remarks like I have no idea WTF I am doing.
Funny how the internet does this at times...
C.
It's not you. Don't take it personally. I have yet to see a source cited on this board that absolutely nobody will argue with. I think if the Supreme Being himself bought a 996 and made 'ring time claims, he'd get an argument in here.
I personally think you are taking this the wrong way. And I don't think this issue has anything in common with technical information. That is a totally different subject.
Are you an attorney? I don't think you are (which is a good thing in my book and not meant to be patronizing in any way). As such, it might be possible that, since you do not do this for a living, you might not know everything about this subject and you might not be aware of some issues that can arise. That would only be normal. I mean, if you were not an attorney and yet you knew everything there could be to know about insurance coverage and contract law, you would be a freak. And a socially awkward misfit freak at that
So, I personally wonder why at times on this and other boards it seems like non-attorneys seem to know more about the law than attorneys. I see that all the time. It is sort of like non-mechanics or "credit card mechanics" knowing more about technical issues than guys who earn their living working on cars or who work on their own cars extensively. It just, well, isn't right.
Now, when someone with knowledge comes into a forum and is arrogant about it, yeah, that is annoying as hell. However, if someone comes in and tries to be helpful, I seriously do not understand why you would react in the way it seems you are reacting. Why would that have anything to do with being an Internet know-it-all when someone with actual training and knowledge tries to share that with you in a helpful and friendly way? I don't follow.
Now, I would never dream of giving you or anyone legal advice over the Internet. I do know that insurance policies are heavily regulated. As such, it is very possible that the terms of the policy itself, or even the laws that apply to the policy, make it impossible to amend that policy by a letter from an adjustor. As such, even if your salesperson or adjustor writes you a letter confirming your conversation, the insurance company may very well not cover you despite the letter. Many times these laws are written to ensure that companies cannot discriminate against particular policy holders. As such, they may require the companies to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy itself and not any agreements, written or verbal, outside of the four corners of the document. Moreover, you can get into arguments about the interpretation of the actual terms are, not to mention the applicability of those terms to your sitaution.
So, am I saying that I know that you will not be covered? NO. I am saying that hearing a verbal reassurance from your salesperson or adjustor, or even receiving the statement in writing (which is better), is not conclusive by any stretch of the means. It is not good news for you. It didn't really change anything. You will not know whether it is good news or not until you try to submit a claim to see if you are covered, and, equally as important, what happens to your rates afterwards. By then, of course, it may be too late.
So, the friendly and helpful suggestion from me and some of the others here was not to get too excited about this and potentially consider track insurance because the consequence of what you reported may not be as significant as your statements suggest you think they are. That is a helpful observation and not linked in any way to trying to prove who is smarter.
Now, if my comments are not being received the way I intend them, as a fellow enthusiast and hopefully friendly guy who has struggled with this EXACT issue and who sat out a few track events at the end of this year due to the concerns I have expressed here, just let me know and I will not respond to your threads any more.
Hopefully you have a better understanding of why I bother to share any information with you or anyone else here now.
TD
Well then you should understand exactly why your response to my post makes me think twice about trying to be helpful . . .
Be careful what you ask for. Do you really want people posting legal citations in these threads? I don't. Personally, I would rather see "tastefully clad (i.e., as nude as John D. will permit) ladies" rather than
Farmers Insurance v. Poor DE Guy
legal citations.
Ok, sorry everyone. I was merely trying to keep Chad from relying on B.S. from an agent.
I don't know Chad. I don't know how sophisticated he is. Tossing around citations for me is like tossing around wheel sizes for some of you racers. Just trying to help; not offend or annoy.
CP
With all due respect, when you start off by saying that "my agent told me" something [verbally] and the people come out of the woodwork to tell you that you have no idea WTF you're doing, they're not being patronizing--they're attempting to point out a SERIOUS flaw in your logic that could, you know, get you sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Chad,
Did you get a chance to read the policy? After following this thread it would be helpful to know if State Farm has inserted new wording.
If it is not worded to exclude DE, I'm sure several here would seriously consider State Farm.
Sorry folks...it's 6:30pm my time and I have been working on a $2.1 million corporate interior for the past 4 days. I'll get back to you guys when my time is not as jammed as it is right now...
Priorities rule at this moment....
C.
My State Farm agent is a DE Instructor. If I have an on-track problem, he'll be there.
We spoke at length on the topic of DE coverage. If I total out my car on the track, not only am I covered, I won't be dropped and my rates won't be affected. If my replacement car gets totaled at the next DE, then my rates will skyrocket.
Good luck on that. Ask him to put it in writing for you.
Your agent has no control over what happens - he will do what the corporate office tells him to do.
Absolutely, 100% correct. I think some of you guys think that lowly automobile insurance agents have a LOT more power than they really do. They're salesmen, pure and simple, and while they might not lie about the terms of the policy, they've got little to no control over your policy.
I mean, do you guys really think the agent that sold you the policy is the guy that decides if you get a big fat check after an incident?
It's at the point now that my insurance agent just transfers me directly to the insurance company when I have questions or changes - they do nothing now that the policy is sold. Calling them salesmen is pretty accurate.
Wow, don't know if I want to jump into this one, but I have also done alot of research and had some experiences to share. In Washington State, I called the Insurance commissioner about this after calling nearly every insurance company I could think of to find a policy that would cover track driving. The commissioners office said unless it is a 55 and over course on a parking lot, I'd better not take my car to any other event/DE on a track. She said if I am going over 60, it will be a problem (keeping it under 60 is my problem - LOL). Anyway, I pulled the actual policies for many of the big companies and the new language being inserted in many now states under EXCLUSIONS: "any activity or event on a temporary or permanent race track". That about excludes everything. I then called the owner of the High Performance Driving school that I had been participating in with my Porsche the past two summers. He did give me the name and phone number of an agent that provides strictly track insurance - nationwide. You can only get a one year policy (no less) and it will cover up to 23 track days per year (no street coverage). It will cover full replacement of your car or repairs. Cost is based on your value (i.e. mine was valued at $72k at the time and cost was about $2300/yr). They all share information now too - and if an insurance company finds out you have been doing track events, it will be shared with any company you try to get insurance with. ONE OTHER NOTE: my son did autocross and when Safeco found out by finding an autocross map in his car after an accident, they kicked out the entire family. The letter we got stated that they consider us "high risk drivers" to participate in timed events such as this. It is a real problem that most don't realize when they go to the track.
California is not normal.
In many, if not all but California, states, driving insurance is mandatory.
Furthermore, how many on this board can truly afford to self insure, and even if you could, would it be wise? I mean, self insuring to the minimimums set forth in the California regulations would be truly insane. Those minimums would not pay for most cars these days let alone medical and liability.
In any event, I am 100 percent certain that making your decision based on the exception is not wise.
Agreed with the sentiment, but there are exceptions beyond CA.
NH does not have mandatory insurance, although if you drive across the border into another state, then you are required to have insurance.
I said that insurance is mandatory. Self insurance according to the terms of California regulation is one form of mandatory insurance. I guess it is a "gotcha" in that I could have worded my original post to cover situations like that. But, it doesn't change the spirit, or accuracy, of the point I made in my post. In short, it shouldn't make any of us track drivers more comfortable in the least, and the analysis I set forth remains just as valid.
Interesting nonetheless.
When I had my Camaro SS and raced every weekend I had a separate policy just for my track days. Covered Saturday 7am through to 11:59pm from may through the end of august. It was through a small company local here, they called it "Race Day Coverage". For the 16 Saturdays the cost was 3700 bucks.
This way if I crashed on the track I wouldn't have to make a claim to my normal insurance, which is ING. My policy was limited of course, if it was raining that day I wouldn't be covered, if I came into contact with another car on the course it wouldn't be covered. Stuff like that.
They covered when I over heated the crappy *** stock brakes and understear put me into a tire wall though. 16k in damage, and my ING insurance stays at 1800 a year for car atv and house still.
I should have included more of your post. You said, "Well, you have no option but to buy insurance. So, if they jack up the rate on you, and they most likely will, you are screwed."
Call it semantics, but there are other options than buying from them. I'm not saying the other options are good or bad, just that there are alternatives (besides taking the bus).
Everyone would like a definitive answer on this topic and unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be one. My carrier (Nationwide) just switched my auto from one of their subs to another, so I got an entirely new policy from them. I read 80% of it word-for-word and skimmed the other 20%...and there's no language excluding track events or off road or anything like that (to my surprise).
I also had the unfortunate experience of coming together with another car at a DE event a few years ago. It wasn't my fault, but that's another story. I paid for the repairs to my old 996 out of pocket (~$4k) because I knew if the insurance company paid that they'd make that money back very quickly (i.e. I self insured).
If you had posted this information rather than merely "gotcha" in your first post, it would have been much more helpful than your first post (which was nonetheless helpful).
The bottom line is that I do not consider "mandatory self insurance" to be a realistic option for 99% of the population, and in the vast majority of states (excluding, apparently, CA and NH), you are not even given the option of self insurance. Again, I haven't researched the exact number of states in which mandatory self insurance is permitted, so someone could identify more, but, since it is not a realistic option, it seems to me to be more of a distraction than anything else.
And, just to clarify, I most certainly self-insure for the track. So I am not talking about that. I am talking about the insanity for most of attempting to self-insure for the STREET. My assumption is that 99% of the population NEEDs an insurance policy for their street car.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
