Why the new EU law does not mandate motorsport liability insurance.
A briefing on § 5d PflVG, frequently misread as a statutory obligation — and quoted accordingly in marketing claims.
Since the implementation of the revised EU Motor Insurance Directive, one statement has been circulating in forums, newsletters and sales conversations: motorsport is now subject to compulsory insurance, and § 5d PflVG makes a specific racetrack liability policy mandatory. From this the impression of a new obligation for drivers and organisers has spread through the market. The provision says something different.
§ 5d PflVG is an external-protection provision. It ensures that a third party who is injured at or in connection with a motorsport event does not see their claim run dry. The addressee of this protection is therefore the injured party — not the driver, not the organiser.
The provision shifts the economic risk for third-party damage towards the compensation system. It does not, however, oblige anyone to take out a specific motorsport liability policy for their own purposes. Anyone who claims the opposite confuses an obligation to pay with an obligation to insure.
Why nothing changes in the actual functioning of liability insurance and recourse is explained in the briefing on racetrack insurance.
An obligation to pay in a loss event is not the same as an obligation to take out insurance in advance.
The first concerns the question of who ultimately bears the third-party damage. The second concerns the question of whether a contract must be concluded before driving onto the track. „Someone has to pay" does not lead to „you must buy a policy".
- —No statutory obligation for drivers to take out a motorsport liability policy.
- —No statutory obligation for organisers to provide such a policy for participants.
- —No change to existing exclusions in motor third-party liability and comprehensive contracts for driving on permanent racetracks.
- —No change to recourse logic: whoever pays externally can continue to recover the amount internally.
Three factors encourage the misunderstanding. First, the reference to an EU directive sounds like a sweeping new obligation. Second, the narrative fits the commercial interest of providers who sell precisely such a policy. Third, hardly anyone reads the actual text of the provision — those who do see that it concerns the protection of third parties, not an insurance obligation.
This false assumption is one of the typical misconceptions about insurance on the racetrack.
EU law protects victims —
not drivers.
The practical consequences of such false assumptions are illustrated in the internal briefing of the Scuderia Hanseat using the example of the Nordschleife.