TO: ALL PROMOTERS, MOTOR SPORT MEDIA, MOTOR SPORT CLUBS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: BOB JANE representing Calder Park Raceway and Adelaide International Raceway
Please note that my statements are, to the best of my knowledge, true and correct and I am prepared to make a sworn statement to that effect.
I will also note Colin Osborne’s statement on 24 December 2003 and I quote:
“ … I note that various individuals have attempted to rebut the facts published by CAMS in the document titled 'CAMS response to Bob Jane's recent correspondence dated 16 December 2003'. CAMS stands by all the facts set out in its last response and does not propose to make any further comment…”
Colin, you state you will stand by all the facts set out in your last response. All I can say to you is that you should have stayed in bed the day you responded.
REBUTTAL: CAMS Response to Bob Jane’s Recent Correspondence Dated 16 December 2003
Issue 1:
“ … In the statement titled ‘Bob Jane & Calder Park not informed of potential insurance deficiency’, distributed on 17 November 2003, Bob Jane attempts to blame CAMS for the financial exposure to the Bob Jane Group of Companies:
… the Bob Jane Group of Companies recently incurred significant exposure of a possible multi million dollar damages claim plus legal claims due to the Confederation of Australian Motor Sports (CAMS) failure to disclose the insurances it arranged for the Bob Jane Group …
… the Bob Jane Group was placed in a dire position by the party responsible for the event’s Insurance, an action that has cost the group operational losses, plus significant and unnecessary legal costs for the Bob Jane Group.
WRONG!
THE FACTS ARE:
The Bob Jane Group of Companies was involved in a large claim arising out of an ANDRA incident in 1995.
The Bob Jane Group of Companies was potentially exposed when two of the underwriters, HIH and The Independent (both prominent insurers), on the CAMS insurance policy went into liquidation – this was entirely beyond the control of CAMS.
The 1995 claim was settled with some contribution paid by CAMS and ANDRA to cover shortfalls left by the defaulting insurers. The Bob Jane Group of Companies did not make any monetary contribution to that settlement …”
“… The Bob Jane Group of Companies was involved in a large claim arising out of an ANDRA incident in 1995…”
Colin, you forgot to add these important words: “… which was covered by CAMS’ Public Liability Insurance illegally forced upon ANDRA in 1995/96…” and that it was the last year that ANDRA used CAMS insurance. Colin that was an interesting omission of a fact!
“… The Bob Jane Group of Companies was potentially exposed when two of the underwriters, HIH and The Independent (both prominent insurers), on the CAMS insurance policy went into liquidation – this was entirely beyond the control of CAMS …”
This is an interesting fact when you say “… this was entirely beyond the control of CAMS …” Does this mean that you do not have control over the insurance you buy for promoters and clubs? Does it also mean that you, CAMS, do not take any responsibility over this important matter? Based on your ‘facts’, this is exactly what you are saying!
“… The 1995 claim was settled with some contribution paid by CAMS and ANDRA to cover shortfalls left by the defaulting insurers. The Bob Jane Group of Companies did not make any monetary contribution to that settlement …”
You are correct here. My company did not cover any shortfalls for very good reasons. CAMS were found responsible for the shortfall and both Bob Jane and ANDRA had paid our insurance fees in good faith and I was not prepared to pay any more.
I did pay in the sense that Calder Park and AIR, with ANDRA, had a potential exposure of AUS$18.7million for a potential claim for an incident in 1995 that materialised in 1999. It was not resolved until 2003.
I can also say that there were other promoters who had public liability claims during the period of 1995/96. In these cases, CAMS suggested to these promoters that they share with CAMS the burden of this non-coverage 50/50. One promoter at least agreed to this solution of paying 50/50 with CAMS.
My position as a promoter and owner of Calder Park Raceway and Adelaide International Raceway facing a potential expense of AUS$18.7million was to virtually stop both motor racing and open drag racing until there was a resolution. I had been asked by CAMS’ lawyers what my decision was in regard to payment. CAMS did not offer to pay 50/50 on this matter with Calder Park Raceway.
During 1999 and the recent resolution to this claim in 2003 as the matter was in court, I was unable to disclose any part of this matter. Perhaps some of the people reading this will now understand what happened in the last 3 years at Calder Park Raceway and Adelaide International Raceway, and why I do not trust the present CAMS insurance with no cover for the first $100,000 of any claim or CAMS’ promises or more importantly, CAMS’ ability to pay.
Issue 2:
“… In the same document, Jane encourages:
… Australian motoring clubs, associations and motor sport competitors to question the current situation in relation to motor racing event and competitor insurance cover.
THE FACTS ARE:
CAMS’ ‘Confirmation of Insurance’ documents are available on the CAMS website for anyone to peruse.
CAMS encourages people to view the documents at
www.cams.com.au...”
Colin, this is more black smoke. The issue is how CAMS will pay, not the bull**** that is on your web site.
Issue 3:
“… Further on in the statement Bob Jane asserts:
There are distinct and very important differences between the AASA and CAMS event insurance. The AASA policy has a $25,000 deductible component being absorbed by the promoter using AASA Public Liability insurance and this $25,000 excludes legal costs.
The CAMS policy has a $100,000 deductible factor for any incident, which includes all legal costs relating to each claim. This is a four-time increase compared to the AASA cover and when legal costs are taken account, the increase could be 12 to 14 times more for each claim …
WRONG!
THE FACTS ARE:
CAMS has a $100,000 excess for each incident, irrespective of the number of claims arising from that incident.
The $100,000 excess includes legal costs and therefore is the maximum that will be paid per incident.
CAMS does not pass this excess on to any other party, paying the excess out of an insurance excess fund, which enables CAMS to absorb the costs, ensuring it is not passed into the membership. This is possible because of the strong financial position of CAMS.
Following extensive financial analysis and insurance advice, the $100,000 excess level was found to be most effective, given the insurance market conditions prevailing at that time.
Jane states that organisers and other insured parties will pay the $25,000 excess on the AASA policy plus any legal costs.
CAMS has a $100 million public liability insurance cover which we understand far exceeds the public liability cover provided by the Australian AutoSport Alliance (AASA)…”
The AASA policy is $25,000 without any legal costs.
I, and many others, not only question the need for CAMS $100 million policy, but worry also about the fact that the first $100,000 of any claim is not covered. This type of policy borders on self-insurance or calamity insurance.
Issue 4:
“ … Jane goes on to make accusations against CAMS:
“It has come to our attention that clubs, competitors and organisations are being recommended against using our venues in relation to insurance”, he said
WRONG!
THE FACTS ARE:
At no time has CAMS recommended that clubs, competitors and organisations not use venues insured by bodies other than CAMS.
CAMS has recommended that anyone intending to participate in events run by bodies other than CAMS should thoroughly check all aspects of the event including insurance, safety, risk management, rules and judicial procedures…”
Colin how can you say all of the above when your director, Peter Bready and your Victorian State Manager addressed the Jaguar Car Club meeting on the dangers of them using Calder Park Raceway for a club event and AASA insurance etc. There is also the MG Car Club who were not prepared to use Calder Park for a club event. There is the AVESCO support of CAMS position where AVESCO has ruled that AVESCO members cannot use Calder Park for either practice or corporate rides. Brad Jones was charged over using Calder Park Raceway by AVESCO with the hearing at Bathurst this October.
So Colin most of the CAMS’ family know what CAMS have done with Calder Park Raceway. It is no wonder then that your words and writings sighting facts are seen for what they are – bull**** (i.e. my polite way of saying ’lies’)
Continued in part 2