Insurance fiasco

[synfinatic]

Berto, you know where I stand, but honestly your statements of knowing the entire story and all the facts rings a little hollow when just yesterday you were incorrectly telling Joe he didn't need the insurance.

Clearly things are very black and white for you on this subject. I wish I could say the same. I'd argue Joe shouldn't need it (I think the worst he could do is take a pic of me in a such a way that I look fat ). Dave Moss works on the bikes so yeah, he probably should have it. Some guy selling vortex sprockets or woodcraft rearsets- well that's where things get fuzzy... vortex/woodcraft should be covering their products and has the deepest pockets.

Clearly the BOD isn't requiring this because they had a few too many beers at the last meeting- it's K&K. And I understand K&K really was the only game in town so the AFM has to play by their rules- as stupid as they might be. That doesn't mean the AFM couldn't do more to help out. Yes these are businesses, but I don't see anyone getting rich off it- they're doing it because they love the sport and want to help AFM racers. From what I gather, Dave Moss went to BW even though he knew he'd be loosing money.

Rather then trying to assign blame, let's all try to figure out what's the best way to move forward which financially makes sense for the AFM, vendors and riders so we all can enjoy the rest of the season.

 

[Holeshot]

Aaron, I missed the part about the change to photog requirments. If one missed change means hollow facts, then we're all in trouble. None the less, that doesn't change the remainder of the facts Shawn presented on the AFM forum, or the brief statements I made above.

Rather then trying to assign blame, let's all try to figure out what's the best way to move forward which financially makes sense for the AFM, vendors and riders so we all can enjoy the rest of the season.

A large majority of the AFM vendors are in compliance. Many were in compliance before the requirement. The increased cost for smaller vendors really sucks.

 

[lokisdog]

A large majority of the AFM vendors are in compliance. Many were in compliance before the requirement. The increased cost for smaller vendors really sucks.

And this for me is the only thing that matters, what if any options exist or are being explored to help these folks out? Subsidies, relaxed or lower coverage requirements for businesses under $X in revenue, special dispensations for low-risk/non-risk folks (Like Joe and Dito for example), etc etc?

So far in all this drama I've not heard much in the way of 'solution'. I don't personnaly know enough about business insurance to speak up about it, but some of you guys do, so where are the solution suggestions?

 

[Holeshot]

Eric, what kind of solution is there when the requirement is spelled out boldly? This is really becomes a vendor/ business issue really. It comes as no surprise that there exists such a requirement from an insurance provider. What does come as a surprise is the idea that the memberships dollars should subsidize AFM vendors. I do not agree with that idea.

 

[Fast Turtle]

Eric, what kind of solution is there when the requirement is spelled out boldly?

I believe Axial Video(sp?) has offered to put any other vendors under their policy as additional insured if the AFM signs off. Or maybe it doesn't qualify, I haven't seen a response from Shawn specific to that but I will gladly acknowledge his efforts to answer reasonable rational questions in the same manner on the AFM forum

 

[lokisdog]

Eric, what kind of solution is there when the requirement is spelled out boldly? This is really becomes a vendor/ business issue really. It comes as no surprise that there exists such a requirement from an insurance provider. What does come as a surprise is the idea that the memberships dollars should subsidize AFM vendors. I do not agree with that idea.

I don't know what solution options there are, hence my question. Subsidies may or may not be a good idea, again, without good data I can't make an argument either way. There are times when subsidies are good business, you give on one end to make up on another end.

But as I said, I'm asking the question because I don't know the answer, but I'd really like us to find one so our vendors/friends can keep bringing the value to the AFM that they have. Just throwing our hands up and saying "Sorry we made a decision that didn't take into account how you might be affected but you're SOL" to them doesn't at all sit right with me.

And let's be very clear Berto, that's exactly what happened. One of two things happened here:

1) No one actually thought this all the way through and what the fallout might be to the vendors or

2) They did and just didn't care.

Either way it's a CF in my mind and we owe it to the vendors to try and come up with ways to get them out of the jam. Doesn't have to be a subsidy, but there has to be a way where we can reduce the burden for some of the smaller guys. Maybe the Axial offer is the answer, I just don't know and that frustrates me.

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

There are a lot of good questions and suggestions amidst all the other “white noise” being posted. Hang in there guys, some answers and responses to these are being investigated and formulated. Some have already been posted by those in the know here and on the AFM site. The wheels of progress don't always move as quickly as an internet forurm.

An FAQ, of sorts if you will, is being drafted and should be out by Monday or Tuesday. Just remember not to kill the messenger (e.g. specific board members, president or general AFM members like me, insurance agents or the nebulous “AFM”) and understand and accept that you may not like or agree with the answers and be prepared to move on. There are bigger entities and messengers that importantly play into this picture that we will not have the opportunity to make direct contact with and question. For example, track owners requiring specific $ coverage above & beyond past practices and insurance companies fronting the $ for coverage with inescapable stipulations. Does anyone want to make this their personal crusade outside of what's already been said or questioned here? Feel free.

Understand that there were time constraints involved and no one in our circles does this full-time and it’s easy to play arm-chair quarterback after the fact. Understand, also, that there are “vendors” that have been doing “business” in the past that flew under the radar. Now, that landscape has changed and some of that “good ol’ boys” and “in the ol’ days” stuff is being uncovered and some people don’t like the new world and realities we all face.

It really doesn’t matter what is going on at “X” location or at “X” event. It really matters what is being demanded at our location(s) and our events. Do any of you have $5 million to front the club to cover any potential losses-real or imagined in an insurance undewriter's office? If not, reconsider the playing field and stop pressing on the brakes and lighting up the freeway creating congestion. No more to see here folks, keep the freeway moving.

 

[duh_ave]

here's an idea:
all the vendors have someone at a "home base". Person needs parts, calls home base, pays via credit card to home base, base calls "delivery person" and ok's to deliver. No vending at track side, only delivery.

Doesnt help the service guys....

paralleling that, how about buying from the vendors website and then taking delivery track side or pre paying (before event) to service folks?

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

See...more great ideas!

Make no mistake, there are some vendors out there crying "foul" when they are more like the boy crying "wolf." It's just more difficult to uncover the wolf under sheep's clothing and post it here on BARF or anywhere.

 

[Scrat44]

I haven't read every entry in this thread but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I'm hoping to be a new vendor this year, and though it is definitely making it more difficult for me to do so (and will likely cut down on the number of events I can do) I understand the need for insurance requirements. I certainly hope that some sort of aide will be available and would like to offer my help in whatever I can do to help move things along. I do have a friend and an insurance company currently working on quotes for me and I'm sure they would be happy to help anyone else with quotes. So far the rates seem to be pretty reasonable considering the requirements, so if anyone would like to give them a try please feel free to call me and I'll pass along their info. I don't know if it will make enough difference, but hopefully it will help someone.

-Travis
916 212-3474
or
916 778-9808

 

[lokisdog]

See...more great ideas!

Make no mistake, there are some vendors out there crying "foul" when they are more like the boy crying "wolf." It's just more difficult to uncover the wolf under sheep's clothing and post it here on BARF or anywhere.

I know that is also the case David, so the sooner we get the clarity the better.

Thanks

 

[Wile E. Coyote]

I'm not sure that is ever going to be possible to gain the clarity you refer to on an open forum. Some $ are hidden in every business and to uncover them here might be a tall and undesirable order in this or any venue.

 

[Holeshot]

Travis, thanks for that offer.

Eric, the third option you left out:

3.) the AFM does not secure insurance coverage and cannot hold events in 2009

 

[TWF]

what is definition of vendor in afm?

 

[duh_ave]

some where back there someone listed it as anyone selling parts or services

that is why I said to call home base to make purchase and just take delivery at the track, hoping that this would constitute purchasing elsewhere?

 

[TWF]

some where back there someone listed it as anyone selling parts or services

which most of us do. if you come to my pit and ask me for lever and I sell you one than I am vendor, right?
or if I fix your bike at track to help you out and charge you case of beer I am vendor again, right?

 

[lokisdog]

Travis, thanks for that offer.

Eric, the third option you left out:

3.) the AFM does not secure insurance coverage and cannot hold events in 2009

Not sure that's valid Berto.

The decision to fix the coverage gaps appears soley to allow 16 and under racers at T-Hill.

According to Shawn's post on the AFM site (underlined sections are Shawn's):

"This is where I believe some are getting confused. I didn't say Thunderhill raised their insurance requirement. It's been the same for 5+ years. The AFM has always meet that the requirement by buying its insurance from the track. When we could no longer buy Thunderhill's insurance and have under 16 minors race we had to get our own. The GL policy we had in place was unable to meet Thunderhill's existing coverage limit. Does that make more sense?

We have a standard contract just like every provider which has the same insurance requirements. You either buy it from the track or you source it yourself. If we wanted certain members of our club to continue racing at T-Hill we needed to supply our own insurance. Just because this is a non-profit doesn't mean we're required post and display all details of every business transaction on-line. "

Now the bold is added by me. As I read this, if we wanted to allow the under 16 racers in at T-Hill, we need to get our own insurance. I assume, but may be wrong, that if we had decided NOT to accomodate the under 16 age group we could have continued buying insurance from T-Hill as we had been, however the under 16 aged riders would not have been allowed to race.

Please correct me if I am wrong on that.

If I'm right and that is the case, and I assume that the decision to allow the under 16 aged racers was in part driven by the money they would bring into the club, a very valid decision point, then it seems it came down to this:

Get our own insurance to accomodate the under 16 racers, with the consequence of placing an additional insurance requirement on the vendors, OR, not let the kids race and keep the status quo.

If that was the decision, then your point is not valid, we could have continued to race at T-Hill buying the insurance from them as we had in the past.

However, if we could not buy insurance from T-Hill anymore regardless of the age thing, then indeed we needed to get our own and your point would be valid, so please clarify:

1) if we had not wanted to accomodate the under 16 aged racers, could we have continued to buy coverage from T-Hill as before and avoided this whole mess?

2) And how does any of this affect BW and Sears?

Thanks

 

[Holeshot]

eric you're not factoring in the fact that thill had the same vendor policy last season.

 

[lokisdog]

eric you're not factoring in the fact that thill had the same vendor policy last season.

Yes I am, re-read Shawn's quote:

"I didn't say Thunderhill raised their insurance requirement. It's been the same for 5+ years."

So even though they had the same policy requirement last season (and the previous 4 seasons) we didn't make any changes to accomodate, didn't change policies or carriers or require additional coverage from the vendors which leads me to believe we just bought insurance from them like we had been doing, because we didn't worry too much about under 16 year olds last year or the previous years.

If we were ok last year, why wouldn't we be ok this year, if not for the desire to accomodate under 16 racers at T-Hill?

And you didn't answer my questions...

 

[Georgie]

To clarify a tad here. T-Hill did require vendors to carry an insurance rider last year, issued to T-Hill directly naming them as Additional Insured. They also assessed a $100/event fee that all vendors were supposed to pay, also directly to T-Hill. This fee was in addition to AFM vendor fees.

This happened at a point part way into the 2008 season and we immediately complied. We never saw anyone from T-Hill come around and check anything or ask anyone for their cert or fee. It was pretty loosey-goosey thing as far as auditing went.

The question I have here is how many other vendors complied with, or were even aware of the insurance requirement and fees T-Hill demanded last year? Because the AFM was aware of this (brand new for 2008) T-Hill requirement (we were informed of it via an email blast from Kevin Smith last May) from last year how did vendors without insurance handle the rest of the 2008 AFM season at T-Hill"?

Secondarily, how have all the track-day providers and their vendors dealt with this policy at T-Hill since it's inception last year?