Jim Hill wrote:
> Richard E. Buckingham, Jr. wrote:
>
> > CSRG is insured through the VMC (Vintage Motorsports Council)
> > insurance program. Every member of the VMC who uses this
> > insurance pays the same premium . . .
>
> > In my club SOVREN)
> > people are always making comments like: "we need to have stronger roll-bar
> > requirements in order to keep our insurance premiums low." This is
> baloney.
> > The premiums are determined by the "loss ratio" of the overall VMC program
> > which has been excellent. What an individual club decides to do about
> tires,
> > roll-bars, gloves, balaclavas, etc. will have no effect on premiums or on
> the
> > ability to get insurance.
>
> Without expressing an opinion on the rule[s] changes being contemplated, or
> whether they'd have an effect on the safety of the events run by any
> particular VMC member, let me just say this:
>
> Some people might read your comment to suggest that the safety record of a
> particular club or the claims filed against a club are somehow "irrelevant"
> because "Every member of the VMC . . . pays the same premium."
>
> I hope that was not your intent since the truth is quite the opposite -
> every claim filed against the insurer will ultimately have an effect on the
> future cost of the insurance. If every club pays the same insurance rate
> then participants in the safest events will end up subsidizing the unsafe
> events.
>
> Jim Hill
> Madison WI
Jim, you are absolutely right. If one club has a lot of claims, it will
definitely impact the rates paid by all the other insured clubs/organizations.
In the unlikely event that this occurred, SOVREN (as one of the clubs in the
VMC insurance program) would certainly lobby the VMC to exclude the
club/organization with the bad loss record from the program (assuming it wasn't
us) so as not to impact everyone's rates in much the same way that a car
insurance company may drop an insured with a bad driving record or a lot of
accidents so that premiums can be keep low. Or, if it could be shown that the
offending club/s high claim rate was due to lax safety rules or lax enforcement
of such rules, then the VMC and/or the insurance carrier might certainly
require a change from that club in order to stay in the insurance program. In
reality, what we are seeing is a very low level of claims by each and every VMC
club/organization that participates in the insurance program. In fact, two
years ago, the premiums were lowered because of the favorable loss ratio. When
I was president of the VMC, I was the main liaison between the VMC and the
insurance carrier. My personal view is that it would be nice to say that those
organizations with the strictest rules were least likely to have a claim;
however, there was no clear-cut pattern. I wanted to use access to the
insurance program as a means of enforcing member clubs to have a universal
"points system" for infractions with mandatory reporting to the VMC Infractions
List. This was shot down. The prevailing view was. We don't have a problem
that needs fixing. I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say and gives
you more insight into the "business aspects" of running events. Dick
|