Objective Evidence now available to compare CAMS & AASA
Discuss Objective Evidence now available to compare CAMS & AASA, on bmsc.com.au, the leading motorsport club in Australia. Australian Rallying Discussion.
Techworkz Automotive, Specialist Subaru repairs, Service and upgrades.
Performance parts imported from Japan including 6 speed STI gearboxes, Engines, Brakes, R180 STI diffs and more.
General Servicing and repairs to all makes and models, log book servicing as well as Government and other fleet vehicles.
Subaru Performance Specialists
General Servicing and repairs to all makes and models
Custom fabrication and modifications to all performance vehicles
Objective Evidence now available to compare CAMS & AASA
G'day all,
Its with some hesitation that I start this thread as really the whole AASA thing is getting about as dreary as contemplating who might be the next leader of the Liberals at a Federal level...
HOWEVER, finally there is available documentation that enables everyone to make the comparisons on insurance benefits (for Personal Accident class of insurance) between running events via CAMS and the AASA.
The available documents are the respective Certificates of Currency as issued by:
Jardine Lloyd Thompson (Jardines) as brokers for Australian Auto Sport Alliance Pty Limited (AASA); and
OAMPS Insurance Brokers Limited (OAMPS) as brokers for the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport Limited (CAMS)
Copies of each of the Jardines and OAMPS Certificates of Currency are attached below, however are also available via the CAMS website (for the CAMS one) and the Targa Tasmania website (for the AASA one).
Its worth recalling that at the time of the big announcement by Octagon that they had decided to align themselves with the AASA, the information released including the following quote:
Quote:
Originally posted in media release from Mark Perry (Event Director, Targa Tasmania) announcing move to the AASA
....I can confirm that all due diligence has been carried out on the insurance provided by AASA and the cover is at least equivalent to our previous policy and in a number of instances actually provides the event greater flexibility and protection for all parties.....
Now I'm not quite sure what the actual due diligence was that Octagon did, but from perusing the attached documents comparing whats in place for Targa (via the AASA) with what CAMS has, there is very little that appears equivalent from where I sit. Although please don't take my word for it, have a look at the attached documents yourselves and form your own views.
For my own convenience I have prepared a comparison table of the various heads of benefit as outlined in the Jardines and OAMPS documents, and I attach this also for anyone who might be interested. Prima facie though, the insurance arranged for and on behalf of the AASA appears considerably inferior (by way of potential maximum benefits) to that as provided by CAMS insurers.
Of the ten areas of potential benefit canvassed in the Jardines and OAMPS Certificates of Currency documents. the followng is noted:
2 areas of potential benefit appear the same under both the AASA and CAMS;
2 areas of potential benefit appear superior (i.e. higher potential maximum benefit) under the AASA arranged insurance. These being a small $50 per week higher benefit for claims relating to "temporary partial disablement" and a reasonably significant potential maximum limit for Emergency Transport Benefit ($15,000 under the AASA as compared to $10,000 via CAMS cover); and
6 areas of potential benefit appear superior (i.e. higher potential maximum benefit) under the insurance brokered by OAMPS for CAMS. These include:
that the death benefit for competitor deaths is two and a half times higher via CAMS ($75,000 via CAMS as compared to $30,000 via the AASA);
a $100 per week higher maximum benefit via CAMS insurers for "temporary total disablement" claims;
a $50 per week higher benefit via CAMS insurers for "emergency home help";
a 50% higher funeral expenses benefit ($7,500 via CAMS as compared to $5,000 via the AASA);
a potential maximum benefit thats is triple the amount via CAMS (as compared to the AASA) under the "lifestyle modification" head of claim ($15,000 via CAMS as compared to $5,000 via the AASA); and
a potential $250 per week (up to a maximum of $2,000) for "non-income earners out of pocket expenses" tha is included in the CAMS aranged cover, but the AASA document is silent on this area.
The other quite noticeable difference between the two Certificates of Currency documents is that in looking at the categories of persons covered for what I would call "competitor risks", the Certificate of Currency for CAMS clearly lists "drivers, co-drivers, crew members and pit/service crew" etc. There is no doubt, that if you are competing in a car at a CAMS event and something occurs, you are included. Whereas, with the AASA coverage, the category for what I have described as "competitor risks" only specifies "drivers and pit crews"?
Of course one would hope that "drivers" in the terms of the document and the insurer for the AASA would also include co-drivers? But if the insurer was to deny cover relating to a co-driver (or other crew member) claim it wouldn't be the first time in history that an insurer has relied on strict policy wording to deny claims that don't fit within the precise category as underwritten. Although I would hope that this anomaly might be something that the AASA could easily clarify.
Apologies for firing this up again, and as I said at the beginning of this message I have hesitated about doing this. In fact I have agonised for a few days over this as it seems in many senses far better now just to get on with competing.. especially as the AASA seems to have all but disappeared lately in relation to having any seeming desire to be further involved with rallying. However, with Targa just hours from kicking off, and having some experience with analysing such documents from my professional background, it seemed on balance better to at least draw attention to whats there for anyone who might be interested.
I have tried to provide reasonably objective and balanced analysis, although I freely acknowledge that my personal opinions do include a natural bias towards CAMS (although increasingly I wonder why!).
Cheers, and please if anyone notices any glaring (or not so glaring) errors on my part, please let me know in order that I can correct them!
David
Last edited by Dave Kelly; 14-04-2008 at 04:06 PM.
Reason: typo's bloody typo's.. oh how I need a PA again!
and the comparative " premium"/permit fee/whatever you want to call it
Fair call Ric... but all the hype said that the cost saving was related to a smaller/simplified structure at the AASA and that "coverage" offered by AASA Insurance was as good if not better than that which is arranged by CAMS.
All that is being illustrated is that there now seems some considerable doubt as to the veracity of that particular claim!
If the AASA had said something along the lines of... "hey you don't need as much cover (or administration) as CAMS provides, so have we got a deal for you..." then there would be no argument. But they haven't (so far) been saying that....
As I said in my post I really did agonise over whether to make these disclosures at all... as it does seem (for reasons not related to the contents of my post) that the AASA are experiencing their own issues and difficulties at present.
No matter who we are dealing with, we should get good service, transparency and honesty. Its fair to say that CAMS has fallen down in all these areas over the years, and continues to fall down (especially in relation to service delivery.. or lack thereof!). Legitimately, questions have been asked about transparency with the AASA.. however as a private company with a profit motive, there is arguably less burden on them in that regard (save of course for their Financial Services Regulation obligations etc) ... and so we haven't had really anything up until the last week to enable proper comparison (aside from personal/learned opinion of those that apparently have seen and perused policy documents).
Now we can make comparisons... thats all I am saying... and many event organisers and competitors might still say that they couldn't give a "rats" whether the death benefit is $5,000 or $500,000 ... as thats the furtherest thing from their minds in contemplating organising/competing in an event. Such a decision is perfectly valid... and completely a personal choice... But at least now that the AASA document is out in the public, we know! The BS about stuff being "the same or better" can stop... and we can all make our own determinations and decisions.
Lets hope that finally when someone does manage to obtain whatever it is that the AASA gives for the first gravel rally that it sanctions (as so far there hasn't been any has there?) we can find out whether in fact it is cheaper (than CAMS)?
Maybe it will be... and maybe it won't be? (on the basis that the AASA are avowed supporters of "user pays" and hence the cross subidisation that occurs within CAMS at setting permit fees apparently won't occur at the AASA). Time will tell... and even if its not cheaper... as well as offering seemingly significantly lower benefits to injured parties... doesn't mean there wouldn't still be some very good reasons to go knocking on Mick Ronke's door. It just makes justifying it that bit harder, thats all!
Cheers (and trying to stay balanced... but potentially failing miserably),
Not really Dave.
Ric, these fees are irrelevent to the level of coverage that the insurer supplies, the fee level only relates to their cost recovery requirements.
Dave, thanks for the effort you have put into this, I think it helps us plebs a great deal.
Not really Dave.
Ric, these fees are irrelevent to the level of coverage that the insurer supplies, the fee level only relates to their cost recovery requirements.
Dave, thanks for the effort you have put into this, I think it helps us plebs a great deal.
Oh yeah how do you figure that if you pay $1.00 you get $X coverage. if you pay $100 you get $X x100 coverage so the comparative premiums are entirely relevant if you are trying to stack ( Value/coverage numbers) against each other. Try paying you car insurer 20% of the premium they want and see if you still get 100% of the coverage you expect
Thanks Dave, great job and most informative. I heard a rumour on the weekend that competitors may be asked to show that they have personal life insurance with motorsport coverage to compete. (at least 150K) This came from someone who has heard that a competitor killed last year's family is struggling financially from the payout received.
I can't sustantiate it only that I heard it. 75K for death would not go too far IMV.
Oh yeah how do you figure that if you pay $1.00 you get $X coverage. if you pay $100 you get $X x100 coverage so the comparative premiums are entirely relevant if you are trying to stack ( Value/coverage numbers) against each other.
We have no idea what the CAMS or the AASA pay in premiums, what we do know is that a competitors contribution to the permit fee that an organiser pays ( to either body ), does not increase the level of coverage recieved regardless of that contribution.
Thanks Dave, great job and most informative. I heard a rumour on the weekend that competitors may be asked to show that they have personal life insurance with motorsport coverage to compete. (at least 150K) This came from someone who has heard that a competitor killed last year's family is struggling financially from the payout received.
I can't sustantiate it only that I heard it. 75K for death would not go too far IMV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v8supercar.com.au
Mandatory insurance for all V8 Supercar drivers
Release date: 09/04/2008
Every V8 Supercar Championship Series and Fujitsu V8 Supercar Series driver will be required to have a minimum $500,000 insurance cover in order to compete in either category.
The board of V8 Supercars Australia has made the insurance mandatory as of next week’s third round of the Championship – the Hamilton 400 in Hamilton, New Zealand. The insurance will also include drivers who compete in the two endurance races of the year, the L&H 500 at Phillip Island and the Supercheap Auto Bathurst 1000.
All drivers are required to present their current insurance details to V8 Supercars Australia by this Friday (April 11) or take out the insurance through V8 Supercars Australia or a provider of their choice. V8 Supercars Australia has offered an insurance package in recent years on a non-compulsory basis.
“The board felt the need to ensure drivers have an adequate financial safeguard in the case of any severe accidents,” V8 Supercars Australia Chief Executive Officer Wayne Cattach said.
“This is in no way pointed towards any particular incident, more a measure that the board wanted to adopt and has been discussing for several months. It is common sense that we as a sport play a part in the welfare of our competitors in the same way we deliver the highest of safety standards as directed by the FIA.
“Many of our drivers have individual insurance in place, this is more of a checking process. If they are not adequately insured they will be required to take out insurance that provides a minimum cover of $500,000.
“In the past this type of insurance has been very difficult to obtain but is now readily available and extremely inexpensive. Some drivers may not have recognised how easily obtainable a high level of insurance is.
“Of course drivers can upgrade the cover if they choose.”
Leading driver Steven Richards said all drivers should have a minimum level of cover in a profession that clearly can be dangerous.
“We choose to take part in a profession that can be dangerous from time to time so it is part of our responsibility to ourselves and our families to have the adequate cover in place,” the Ford Performance Racing driver said.
“The last thing I would want is to be survived by a wife and kids who have no means of getting back on their feet should something happen to me on a racetrack.
“I’d encourage any racing car driver to ensure that they are looking after themselves and ensuring that they have the right individual cover.”
The mandatory insurance comes as V8 Supercars Australia look to protect the welfare of drivers and in addition to working with CAMS and the FIA to ensure the sport complies with the highest safety regulations.
Source:V8 Latest News"
“In the past this type of insurance has been very difficult to obtain but is now readily available and extremely inexpensive. Some drivers may not have recognised how easily obtainable a high level of insurance is.”
“is now readily available” to who? V8supercar drivers? What about other competition licence holders? “extremely inexpensive” for who? Professional V8supercar drivers on million dollar contracts with Ford or Holden?
In all seriousness, I would like to know what insurance (income/life) is available to amateur competition drivers/co-drivers in Australia. I don’t mean insurance companies/brokers who say “yeah, yeah, you’re covered” just to get a sale and then if something does actually happen they have some obscure clause that means you aren’t covered.
__________________
"Even a puppet could win in a Williams" - Nigel Mansell prior to the 1992 Japanese Grand Prix in reference to Alain Prost (who was replacing Mansell at Williams).
Supported by:
Capital Steering and Suspension - Steering you in the right direction - 6280 5243
Datsport - Datsun 1600 Specialists - ( 08 ) 8186 2100
Last edited by Mike Cherry; 14-04-2008 at 08:37 PM.
..... 75K for death would not go too far IMV.....Dallas
Indeed Dallas, $75K wouldn't go far ... but it's a whole lot ($45K) better than $30K.. which is the maximum "driver and pit crew" death payout for AASA events!!
Just by way of addional info, OAMPS (CAMS Broker) also have an option whereby licence holders, officials and other crew (including photographers!) can "opt in" directly to extra insurance that increases the various limits above the limits as per the policy CAMS has in place.
This additional cover is offered by ACE Insurance through OAMPs as broker in "units" where each "unit" increases the death payout by $50K (over the standard $75K) (and also increases other benefits such as weekly "income protection" type payments etc by commensurate amounts).
You can buy from one to five units (max), with the advertised 2008 price being $175.45 for the full 12 months per unit. Although it seems that it is possible to get pro-rata rates till the calendar year end if you only need cover say for a competition year that runs May onwards.. i.e. at 8/12's (2/3rd's) the premium.
It should be noted that in addition to the per unit cost as per above, a brokerage fee of $100 is also incurred for the first unit (only) of additional cover!
Still, for those that can't be bothered shopping around for cover for income protection/life insurance where motor sport doesn't disqualify you.. at least theres a relatively easy option available!
.. Now if I could just get cover for my other passion...... rock climbing.. then all would be great!!!
But please remember that Octagon are happy with what they are purchasing, so there is no need to start all the AASA is inferior/bad/nasty/unrelieable, blah, blah, blah stuff PLEASE!!!, and it is the competitors choice as to whether they are prepared to race under AASA or CAMS.
__________________
.
.
The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Hi Trev,
I think that is whole point of this thread.
Someone has decided to find and compare both of the policies so that we can all look for ourselves and make our own informed decisions instead of having to believe one party or another.
We now have the policies and a somewhat detailed analysis so that we as indiviuals can make the choice, and discuss concerns in either of the policies that may cover us in the event we choose to complete in, officiate at or assist at.
Well done Dave I guess either Policy would have been reasonable if they were viewed in isolation of each other, the next question would be, given the structure of the events, in which event would a claim on the policy be most likely? That is now lets look at the respective risk management stratergies, we have CAMS now we just need to see the AASA documentation.
But please remember that Octagon are happy with what they are purchasing, so there is no need to start all the AASA is inferior/bad/nasty/unrelieable, blah, blah, blah stuff PLEASE!!!, and it is the competitors choice as to whether they are prepared to race under AASA or CAMS.
So someone who wants to do Targa has a choice to "race" under CAMS or AASA? No, I don't think that's how it works. The choice is in whether or not one does the event, take it or leave it, not whether they get CAMS or AASA insurance coverage. The choice here is with the organisers, not the competitors.
__________________
"I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don't really care how God did what He did. I know He did it."
Linear Mode
