ICSCC Insurance Liability Waiver
- Thread starter Bonnie
- Start date
Steve Adams
Just this guy, ya know?
I don't have a copy of that and it's not in any of the materials I got when I took over as Web admin. I doubt anyone's ever asked for it before. 
I'm just sayin' ...
In view of the (sometimes heated) discussion going on under Rule changes, in my (MOST humble!) opinion, I think the waiver form SHOULD be easily accessible from the website.
And it brings up another question ... does each track use the same form, or do different tracks use different waiver forms - with possibly different wording? Because the wording is critical.
This is one of the most important documents surrounding a race weekend, in terms of possible litigation. If it's worded correctly, and has been signed by the potentially injured party, it goes a long way to preventing (or beating) a lawsuit ... again, in my humble opinion.
The two fellows recently injured on bikes in the pit area ... if they HAD had insurance, I would bet that while their medical bills would have been paid, their insurer may well have looked into the circumstances to see if there was anyone they could collect from. And if the injuries we're talking about are, say, $100,000 instead of $10,000, the likelihood of them looking for someone to blame would increase dramatically!
I'm curious ... I know that in the not-too-distant past, we had a couple of serious incidents in one day in Seattle involving the Lifeflight helicopter, ambulances, etc. - did that cause any insurance repercussions?
Maybe things work differently in the US than they do in Canada, but I THINK that's the way insurance companies work. If they just paid out claims without ever looking for ways to set-off their costs, insurance companies couldn't exist. And while you may think they're bottom-feeding good-for-nothings, if something happens to you and you're left with a wife and kids and no income, I think you'll be very grateful you HAVE insurance.
My (Canadian) two cents!
In view of the (sometimes heated) discussion going on under Rule changes, in my (MOST humble!) opinion, I think the waiver form SHOULD be easily accessible from the website.
And it brings up another question ... does each track use the same form, or do different tracks use different waiver forms - with possibly different wording? Because the wording is critical.
This is one of the most important documents surrounding a race weekend, in terms of possible litigation. If it's worded correctly, and has been signed by the potentially injured party, it goes a long way to preventing (or beating) a lawsuit ... again, in my humble opinion.
The two fellows recently injured on bikes in the pit area ... if they HAD had insurance, I would bet that while their medical bills would have been paid, their insurer may well have looked into the circumstances to see if there was anyone they could collect from. And if the injuries we're talking about are, say, $100,000 instead of $10,000, the likelihood of them looking for someone to blame would increase dramatically!
I'm curious ... I know that in the not-too-distant past, we had a couple of serious incidents in one day in Seattle involving the Lifeflight helicopter, ambulances, etc. - did that cause any insurance repercussions?
Maybe things work differently in the US than they do in Canada, but I THINK that's the way insurance companies work. If they just paid out claims without ever looking for ways to set-off their costs, insurance companies couldn't exist. And while you may think they're bottom-feeding good-for-nothings, if something happens to you and you're left with a wife and kids and no income, I think you'll be very grateful you HAVE insurance.
My (Canadian) two cents!
scott_morton
The Stigs NW Cousin
As far as I know, all the tracks except Mission use the same form. It is supplied by Conference. We used to get them from Linda Heinrich when she was President. I am not sure who is in charge of them now.
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
Where ever the ones used here come from. they all seem to be the same for ICSCC, SOVREN and SCCA and the Karting club in this area.
Last edited:
rick_bostrom
Onda Kattan Racing
I agree with you Bonnie, with a comment and one potential caveat:
Comment - I have no problem with insurance companies clearly defining what they will cover and investigating claims to make sure the contract between two parties is settled fairly according to the provisions agreed upon in the policy by both parties. That is just good business and I don't begrudge insurance companies who just want to insure they are shouldering their burden and not more. Where it gets sticky is when insurance companies use ridiculously tourtured legal loopholes or a retainered legal juggernaught to crush underfunded claimants in the name of profit. I'm sure that there are a lot of fair and ethical insurance carriers out there - it's a shame that the bad eggs have tainted the industry.
Caveat - Let's not forget that the wife and kids without an income were offered as hostages to fate by someone who consciously made the decision to elevate his level of risk. I'm not saying that because of that decision he should be unconditionally blamed and ignored, I'm just saying that as drivers we HAVE to accept some percentage of the consequences of our decisions.
Thanks for your Canadian two cents!
Comment - I have no problem with insurance companies clearly defining what they will cover and investigating claims to make sure the contract between two parties is settled fairly according to the provisions agreed upon in the policy by both parties. That is just good business and I don't begrudge insurance companies who just want to insure they are shouldering their burden and not more. Where it gets sticky is when insurance companies use ridiculously tourtured legal loopholes or a retainered legal juggernaught to crush underfunded claimants in the name of profit. I'm sure that there are a lot of fair and ethical insurance carriers out there - it's a shame that the bad eggs have tainted the industry.
Caveat - Let's not forget that the wife and kids without an income were offered as hostages to fate by someone who consciously made the decision to elevate his level of risk. I'm not saying that because of that decision he should be unconditionally blamed and ignored, I'm just saying that as drivers we HAVE to accept some percentage of the consequences of our decisions.
Thanks for your Canadian two cents!
Thanks Rick.
So ... I don't know who to put this request to, but would it be possible to get copies of the waiver forms from each track, make sure the wording is the same and the insurance company is happy with the wording, and then post that wording on the website? So that in the cushy comfort of our own home, with a coffee or a glass of vino in front of us, over the cold winter months ahead, we can read that wording and think long and hard about what it is we're accepting by venturing on to ... or next to ... the racetrack? And share with our loved ones the risk we've agreed to accept?
Because let's face it, no one I know stands and reads the waiver Saturday morning on a race weekend!
So ... I don't know who to put this request to, but would it be possible to get copies of the waiver forms from each track, make sure the wording is the same and the insurance company is happy with the wording, and then post that wording on the website? So that in the cushy comfort of our own home, with a coffee or a glass of vino in front of us, over the cold winter months ahead, we can read that wording and think long and hard about what it is we're accepting by venturing on to ... or next to ... the racetrack? And share with our loved ones the risk we've agreed to accept?
Because let's face it, no one I know stands and reads the waiver Saturday morning on a race weekend!
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
You should read the waiver each time you sign it, if you want to know what it says. They are, or could be, different for each organization that you participate with. I have even gotten updated waivers mid-season.
Or, you could accept that you are waiving every right you have, for any reason, should you get injured at a racetrack.
I encourage you to ask me your insurance questions. My email link is on the ICSCC website. Insurance is full of specific terms, not-necessarily-logical requirements, and many legal principals. After all, liability insurance is protecting you from legal responsibility.
Scott Adare
ICSCC Insurance Advisor
Or, you could accept that you are waiving every right you have, for any reason, should you get injured at a racetrack.
I encourage you to ask me your insurance questions. My email link is on the ICSCC website. Insurance is full of specific terms, not-necessarily-logical requirements, and many legal principals. After all, liability insurance is protecting you from legal responsibility.
Scott Adare
ICSCC Insurance Advisor
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
On a side-note.
SCCA introduced an "optional' annual membership card in 2008 which (for a fee of course) allows you to submit a signed race waiver with your application. It removes the need to sign a waiver each race weekend
My immediate reaction was a BIG Whoopy
Bad enough to pay $85 a year for the 'privilege' of holding a flagging license and working the double national weekend let alone paying another $25 to avoid having to sign a piece of paper a couple of times a year.. Geez It does NOT eliminate the need to stop at the registration booth to pick up your 'stuff' (if it somehow did that it might have value, maybe).
Really now, regardless of what that release said, I cannot imagine its content stopping me from attending and participating in a race weekend as much as I possibly can
SCCA introduced an "optional' annual membership card in 2008 which (for a fee of course) allows you to submit a signed race waiver with your application. It removes the need to sign a waiver each race weekend
My immediate reaction was a BIG Whoopy
Bad enough to pay $85 a year for the 'privilege' of holding a flagging license and working the double national weekend let alone paying another $25 to avoid having to sign a piece of paper a couple of times a year.. Geez
It does NOT eliminate the need to stop at the registration booth to pick up your 'stuff' (if it somehow did that it might have value, maybe).Really now, regardless of what that release said, I cannot imagine its content stopping me from attending and participating in a race weekend as much as I possibly can
Last edited:
Ken Killam
Fats
If you would like to work F&C, or other specialty of your choice at any of our ORSCCA events at PIR, or other venue, please Richard you and any other may be our guest at no out of pocket expense from you to provide your services.
I mean that. Sign the weekend "waiver" at registration, and you can play all you like.
As for hard cards, then there's the membership paying to provide you with one so you can pay them to provide you with one.... Yeah, that's about it.
I worked over twelve event-days, as a member and not only copped a cool discount on my renewal fee from National, the Region popped for the remainder applying that incentive process.
We're all volunteers here... Even the certified members are volunteers.
It would make me as happy to have you with us, as you may be happy to be there.
I mean that. Sign the weekend "waiver" at registration, and you can play all you like.
As for hard cards, then there's the membership paying to provide you with one so you can pay them to provide you with one.... Yeah, that's about it.
I worked over twelve event-days, as a member and not only copped a cool discount on my renewal fee from National, the Region popped for the remainder applying that incentive process.
We're all volunteers here... Even the certified members are volunteers.
It would make me as happy to have you with us, as you may be happy to be there.
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
Interesting, Ken. Up here, when the 'carpet baggers' come in to town for the National races (i.e. out of town Stewards and Staffing people), it's 'required' that you be a member to work the event! Be that an annual or a temp. weekend membership.
That IS okay with me as I understand it provides the volunteers with the FULL SCCA insurance coverage (lets not get back on that topic).
What I do 'grumble' about is being a 'volunteer' and then having to pay the FULL $85 a year for my membership and Flag License.. Grrrrr
Racing support staff should get their memberships for what, maybe half price? Considering we pay NOTHING to provide volunteer service to SOVREN and (optional) $20 for ROD membership, the SCCA seems out of line when it comes to charging 'volunteers'.
Last edited:
tobybasiliko
doofus
Taken out of context... and it STILL makes sense !
t
Richard Broadhead
Flag & Com
LOL, Toby.
In many ways I agree. But it could be so much better.
In many ways I agree. But it could be so much better.
Ken Killam
Fats
It never gets better than the people that it's made of.
Or is it, Never gets better people than what it's made of? No... It's, Never gets made better than it's people.
I forget which, now.
Who's for scanning their local waiver(s) into .pdfs which might be stored in one of Steve's highly secure virtual locations, and we can compare notes sometime.
Or is it, Never gets better people than what it's made of? No... It's, Never gets made better than it's people.
I forget which, now.
Who's for scanning their local waiver(s) into .pdfs which might be stored in one of Steve's highly secure virtual locations, and we can compare notes sometime.
???
Okay, well, I'm pretty surprised that there's not ONE carefully worded waiver for all the Conference tracks, and that modified ones are sent willy-nilly mid-season.
I guess that first one you read isn't necessarily the one you're signing now then Rich!
I agree, we should read it top to bottom, but it's pretty hard to do when you've gotten up at 4:00 a.m. to leave home to drive to Seattle, stop for breakfast, and still try to make the morning meeting on time.
That's why I thought - and think - it should be available as a standard form on the Conference website.
The bit of research I did stressed how important the actual wording of the waiver is ... right down to what size the print font is!!!
Here's the link to SCCA's waiver ...
www.scca.com/documents/insurance/sccaformMS-1.pdf
Simple Google search, "SCCA waiver", and VOILA, there it is.
I won't even start on how I feel about having to pay $85 [US] to volunteer - but I'm glad to see that part of that money makes accessing their waiver form so easy!
(Kenny, I love many of the SCCA people, it's the bureaucracy [and g'zillion stewards] that drives me crazy. But I digress ...)
Seems to me, if folks are as concerned about liability as they seem to be, judging from the discussion on the Rules forum, they should be concerned about the wording of the waiver ... and there should only be one.
Okay, well, I'm pretty surprised that there's not ONE carefully worded waiver for all the Conference tracks, and that modified ones are sent willy-nilly mid-season.
I guess that first one you read isn't necessarily the one you're signing now then Rich!
I agree, we should read it top to bottom, but it's pretty hard to do when you've gotten up at 4:00 a.m. to leave home to drive to Seattle, stop for breakfast, and still try to make the morning meeting on time.
That's why I thought - and think - it should be available as a standard form on the Conference website.
The bit of research I did stressed how important the actual wording of the waiver is ... right down to what size the print font is!!!
Here's the link to SCCA's waiver ...
www.scca.com/documents/insurance/sccaformMS-1.pdf
Simple Google search, "SCCA waiver", and VOILA, there it is.
I won't even start on how I feel about having to pay $85 [US] to volunteer - but I'm glad to see that part of that money makes accessing their waiver form so easy!
(Kenny, I love many of the SCCA people, it's the bureaucracy [and g'zillion stewards] that drives me crazy. But I digress ...)
Seems to me, if folks are as concerned about liability as they seem to be, judging from the discussion on the Rules forum, they should be concerned about the wording of the waiver ... and there should only be one.
Lynn Rimmer
Good2Go
Different waivers....different states/countries....different ages of majority.
And I think SCCBC goes through ASN for their coverage on an ICSCC weekend.
eeeeegads The wording would have to be changed and extremely thought out to have one size fits all. Is it do-able??
But like you Bonnie, I just blindly sign the waiver not really knowing, just trusting.
It's kinda funny though how we will read the paperwork and fine print on a financial agreement because it's our money at risk, but not when it's our limbs.
A few years ago, at our bank, if I would have signed the documents put in front of us without reading them, it would have cost us a bunch of extra money down the road. I had them redo the papers.
Maybe I need to take the time and show more individual due diligence and personal responsibility in this regard as well.
Bonnie, I think you've asked some good questions given that there are some variables.
And I think SCCBC goes through ASN for their coverage on an ICSCC weekend.
eeeeegads The wording would have to be changed and extremely thought out to have one size fits all. Is it do-able??
But like you Bonnie, I just blindly sign the waiver not really knowing, just trusting.
It's kinda funny though how we will read the paperwork and fine print on a financial agreement because it's our money at risk, but not when it's our limbs.
A few years ago, at our bank, if I would have signed the documents put in front of us without reading them, it would have cost us a bunch of extra money down the road. I had them redo the papers.
Maybe I need to take the time and show more individual due diligence and personal responsibility in this regard as well.
Bonnie, I think you've asked some good questions given that there are some variables.
Thanks Lynn ... it just seems to me that if this is the ONE thing that most protects Conference as a whole, then shouldn't there be more concern about it?
Having it available for all to see would go a long way to the transparency issue.
Much ado about nothing? Maybe ... until the first lawsuit comes along I guess.
Oh, and the other thing I found out ... all SCCA events use the standard form, with different venues sometimes requiring a second one to be signed for the hosting site or club. If I remember correctly, one site called the waiver "the cornerstone of [SCCA's] existence".
Having it available for all to see would go a long way to the transparency issue.
Much ado about nothing? Maybe ... until the first lawsuit comes along I guess.
Oh, and the other thing I found out ... all SCCA events use the standard form, with different venues sometimes requiring a second one to be signed for the hosting site or club. If I remember correctly, one site called the waiver "the cornerstone of [SCCA's] existence".
Minors - and negligence or accident?
In today's paper - and , though not directly on point, an example of what I'm talking about with the importance of waiver wording in sport ...
Parents cannot waive a child’s right to sue for injuries: B.C. court
By NEAL HALL, VANCOUVER SUN October 16, 2009 4:02 PM
METRO VANCOUVER -- A parent cannot sign away a child’s right to sue for injuries caused by negligence, a judge has ruled in what is believed to be a precedent-setting decision.
Victor Wong of Richmond, now a 20-year-old University of B.C. student, sued Lok’s Martial Arts Centre and owner Michael Lok.
Wong claimed he suffered injuries because of the negligence of the defendants, including Ramin Asgare Nik, who violently threw Wong to the ground in the course of a sparring match at a Hapkido school owned and operated by Lok’s.
Wong alleged the defendants were negligent “in failing to take preventative measures to ensure that injuries did not occur in the course of sparring matches by taking such measures as screening participants, instructing participants, requiring suitable protective gear or carefully supervising matches.”
Lok and the martial arts centre went to court to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that Wong’s mother, Yen To, signed a release, agreeing not to make legal claims for injuries when Wong first began taking lessons in 2001, when he was 12.
The document, titled “Conditions of membership and release,” said: “It is expressly agreed that all exercises and treatments, and use of all facilities shall be undertaken by the student’s sole risk...YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INJURIES!”
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Willcock concluded that while the Infants Act was intended by the legislature to establish the sole means of creating contractual obligations that bind minors, “the act does not permit a parent or guardian to bind an infant to an agreement waiving the infant’s right to bring an action in damages in tort.”
The judge dismissed the defendant’s application to strike the lawsuit, but has not ruled on whether the defendants were negligent. That matter now is set to proceed to trial on Nov. 23.
“It appears to be precedent-setting in B.C.,” Wong’s lawyer, Bonnie Lepin, said Friday of the ruling. “It may well be the first [ruling of its kind] in Canada.”
She said the ruling will not affect parents signing waivers for their children involved in sports or skiing who have accidental injuries.
The ruling, she added, only means a parent cannot sign away a child’s right to sue for injuries caused by negligence.
Lepin said her client suffered a fracture of his right arm, which required surgery and left the young man partially disabled. His right arm now becomes fatigued and cramped because of the injury, she said.
“He gets more time to write exams,” Lepin explained about the UBC student.
The full judgment is available online at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/13/2009BCSC1385.htm
In today's paper - and , though not directly on point, an example of what I'm talking about with the importance of waiver wording in sport ...
Parents cannot waive a child’s right to sue for injuries: B.C. court
By NEAL HALL, VANCOUVER SUN October 16, 2009 4:02 PM
METRO VANCOUVER -- A parent cannot sign away a child’s right to sue for injuries caused by negligence, a judge has ruled in what is believed to be a precedent-setting decision.
Victor Wong of Richmond, now a 20-year-old University of B.C. student, sued Lok’s Martial Arts Centre and owner Michael Lok.
Wong claimed he suffered injuries because of the negligence of the defendants, including Ramin Asgare Nik, who violently threw Wong to the ground in the course of a sparring match at a Hapkido school owned and operated by Lok’s.
Wong alleged the defendants were negligent “in failing to take preventative measures to ensure that injuries did not occur in the course of sparring matches by taking such measures as screening participants, instructing participants, requiring suitable protective gear or carefully supervising matches.”
Lok and the martial arts centre went to court to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that Wong’s mother, Yen To, signed a release, agreeing not to make legal claims for injuries when Wong first began taking lessons in 2001, when he was 12.
The document, titled “Conditions of membership and release,” said: “It is expressly agreed that all exercises and treatments, and use of all facilities shall be undertaken by the student’s sole risk...YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INJURIES!”
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Peter Willcock concluded that while the Infants Act was intended by the legislature to establish the sole means of creating contractual obligations that bind minors, “the act does not permit a parent or guardian to bind an infant to an agreement waiving the infant’s right to bring an action in damages in tort.”
The judge dismissed the defendant’s application to strike the lawsuit, but has not ruled on whether the defendants were negligent. That matter now is set to proceed to trial on Nov. 23.
“It appears to be precedent-setting in B.C.,” Wong’s lawyer, Bonnie Lepin, said Friday of the ruling. “It may well be the first [ruling of its kind] in Canada.”
She said the ruling will not affect parents signing waivers for their children involved in sports or skiing who have accidental injuries.
The ruling, she added, only means a parent cannot sign away a child’s right to sue for injuries caused by negligence.
Lepin said her client suffered a fracture of his right arm, which required surgery and left the young man partially disabled. His right arm now becomes fatigued and cramped because of the injury, she said.
“He gets more time to write exams,” Lepin explained about the UBC student.
The full judgment is available online at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/13/2009BCSC1385.htm
tobybasiliko
doofus
This has been true in Washington state for some time, and it's one of the reasons
that 16- year- olds can't race here. The parents can't bind them to the waiver,
and THEY aren't considered to be competent to bind themselves to it,
so a truly effective waiver can't be established. And thus, no racing.
At least, that's the story from the BMW club, which has a few lawyers....
True in New York state, too, but I'm not sure of the reasons... vaguely
remember something as inane as alcohol advertisement.
t