Originally Posted by r53s65e90
I will pay to play no doubt. Nevertheless, it is a matter of principle too. It is really annoying to be covered in the case you are flying @120mph drunk down the highway and have a crash and not covered when you are enjoying your car in a safe and controlled environment. Therefore, I will give any reasonable insurance a chance (if such a company exists) and then if I am unsuccessful I will buy adequate track insurance. I have seen track crashes where the insurance covered the loss about a year ago. E-surance was "reasonable" until my last renewal a week ago.
The difference is that you are not supposed to be driving 120mph on a highway, whereas you are supposed to be doing exactly that during an HPDE. Yes, you can still do 120mph on a highway even though you are not supposed to, but the insurance company tries to estimate the chances of you doing that based on your driving record and prices your policy accordingly. I know of a case where the person was denied a claim when he totalled his car on the track although he was "told" he was covered. He is in court right now fighting the insurance company. We debated that in detail on another thread, so you can find that discussion if you are curious. I also know of "minor" cases where the insurance honored claims. My guess is that they respond differently to major claims. At any rate, you might very well find yourself in court even if you can't find any exclusions in the policy unless you get a statement of coverage in writing.