I was thinking the exact same thing. Life insurance would pay out, provided there isn’t a no racing clause. No way in hell they would drill down to out-of-compliance safety equip.

The weight of the helmet actually contributed to his death. The sudden stop tried to yank his head off his neck. Just as it did Adam Petty, Clifford Allison and Kenny Irwin Jr. Without a Hans device probably all the drivers would've died regardless of what helmet they were wearing.

Lots of race car drivers survived many head on crashes with guard rails and other cars long before Hans devices where invented or used, especially NASCR drivers
Some men and women didn't survive on the track or on the roads

That's kinda like saying lots of people never died from cancer caused by smoking. It's true but doesn't change the fact that a Hans device probably could've saved some lives just as not smoking could've too.

I also believe the lack of a full face helmet played a significant role in his death, Dale being the only driver in the race wearing an open face, to the consternation of Nascar, and it's nuanced IMO his face struck the steering wheel, something a HANS would have mitigated. This is also why I believe, the first person's reaction to Dale's wrecked car understood the obvious seriousness of Dale's injuries, and why autopsy photos were so diligently guarded.

NASCAR no longer allowed open face helmets on the track.

Sorry, this position doesn't hold water.


Are you kidding? It's not life insurance or suicide.
I sat on a Nassau County civil jury in which the judge explained contributory negligence "can be from 0 to 100%".

I agree. We were at that race and I watched through binoculars Kenny Schrader's reaction. I told my cousin that it must be bad. Later in an interview Kenny commented that "a person should never have to see a friend like that".

What got me was nascars reaction, it took the death of their star to get a reaction. It's like the deaths of the three young drivers from the same type of injury was only a minor inconvenience to them. That was the end for nascar with me.

Haven't paid much attention to it in a while - except for when I Googled "race car drivers and life insurance" when I went looking for actual facts - but for the last life insurance policy I applied for, one of the first questions was "Do you participate in hazardous activities like sky diving, or driving race cars?". Policies are not all the same. The more you're worth dead, the more they pay attention. Read the fine print.

My suggestion to anyone questioning the value and/or motivation for the emphasis on being as up to date as possible on safety equipment - message Alan Prusiensky, John or Brittany Force (or any of the people who leveled one in a Funny Car this year), John Medlin, Stevie "Fast", Steve Torrance, Sidnei Frigo or any of the other people who have had real experience with ferocious crashes recently and walked away with minor or no injuries. Ask them their opinion, based on their first hand knowledge.

Or not.

I have no idea what you are referring to.

A life insurance policy is a contract, and unless its clearly stipulated the insured has a responsibility for any required behavior, the only requirement for a full benefit payment is proof of death, period, doesn't matter one iota how stupid the insured actions were.

And I'm drowning here.

All I can add here is years ago I had a Prudential Life insurance policy. My agent knew I raced so there was a rider added to my policy and a small monthly fee so I was covered on and off the track. I cashed in that policy years ago needing the money while going through my divorce

Racing deaths are not suicide, and the policy in question is not his life insurance - it's the cost to the track and other drivers.
Your life insurance may cover you for a racing death - and that has the following effect on other participants: none whatever.

"No suicide for 2 years" was the rule in life insurance policies for over 100 years. You agreed to it when you paid the premium; no, you can't cross it out and initial it. No one who killed himself with wet ink on the new policy received money.
My source: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employed my grandfather, my father, and me beginning around 1930. I was employed as a Senior Court Clerk by the Supreme Court of New York County, Civil Term, after that.

Check which statement you THINK I made, but did not:
1. "I won't wear a helmet, and you shouldn't either"
2. "all safety rules are dumb"

I watched that happen to two of my old Arai motocross helmets while they sat on a shelf for years.

They don't last forever, much as I wish they did. When they get past being safe, display them or trash them.

Tour statements seem to be in conflict:

"W/r/t your life insurance finds out your safety equipment was in violation of posted rules...and they pin loss of life on it

This is quite possible, "contributory negligence" is claimed to reduce the award value."

This last posting of yours only restates what I mentioned a number of replies ago for the discerning reader..

Let me recap succinctly:
1. Accidents/deaths at the track effect all racers, partly thru increased insurance costs of the operators.
2. life insurance benefit award for at the track incidents are not directly effected negatively in anyway by "contributory negligence" pf the deceased.
3. Its hard to justify "contributory negligence" as a life insurance benefit reduction factor, IF for example say almost universally ,suicide is no a reduction factor, as I already clearly noted, but there are often certain restrictions regarding suicide on life insurance ( 2 yr initial exclusion being the most common).
4. Life Insurance is a contract, subject to its terms, that both parties agree to in advance.

W/r/t insurance:
During my decades in Supreme Court, I spent many humorous hours reading the most recent Appellate decisions (where you go when the State Supreme Court is wrong). A large percentage of these share a concept: the 2 parties who signed the contract had very different opinions as to what they were required to do, etc. It is the insurance company's legal fiduciary duty to deny all claims. Yes, really - until or unless the Judge or jury makes them. The default position is OMDB..

The author of a good contract (I sold some with [insert Party 3 here] fields for DIY legal separations, child support mods, waivers, releases, renouncement of surviving spouse's right to elect against the decedent's will) earns his fee from Part 1 by crafting language that appears to grant concessions to Party 2 - but:
1. does not
2. requires impossible standard of proof
3. waives or delays performance as to Party 1

If anyone ere believes that there is some form of "Court of Last Resort", whose intellectual brilliance and ultimate competence can and does correct any & all outrages, insults, etc?
Explain "Kelo", "Citizens United", "Roe v. Wade", "Batson", and "Dual Sovereignty".

Waiting for the penny to drop: the NY "look back provision".

Let me summarize: in motion practice, any form of moral rectitude, consciousness of error, etc. are fatal handicaps.

Guys....This thread is going nowhere fast...It is done. Sorry!