Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Move the turn up so there's 20 or 30 feet of runoff between the berm and the hillside.
If this were my home track and it ends up closing down due to this….my pitchfork would be fucking sharp…..
Watching the vid posted before it looked like no brakes or whiskey throttle as most likely, and there sure is a lot of places you didn't want to go over a berm there. The left hander after the pit too. It's a good thing it didn't happen in the pits or they would be paying. Either way, that family should never be allowed at a track EVER again 🙄
That seems pretty shady. Most all policies have subrogation clauses in them, so there is no reason for a policyholder to agree to anything else. And if they were withholding a claim until a policyholder signed something, that'd be extortion. Once the loss has occurred, the policyholder should be 'made whole' without having to agree to anything else other than what is in the original contract. Again, most all policies also require that you not comment on anything negatively so that the insurance company doesn't have to pay more than they otherwise could. That's why your auto insurance cards always say 'do not admit guilt' on them, because the insurance company wants the ability to do their own investigation and not have your words used against them.
In the example you are using, they may have requested some paperwork basically granting them power of attorney over that particular case, but it would have needed to be to move the case along quicker, I'm sure. And they couldn't have withheld claim payment for anything if they were requesting something other than in the initial insurance agreement.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Great point bringing up the Brian Moreau v. Feld lawsuit, I haven’t heard much about that since the initial post about them getting the ball rolling on it. I was at the stadium when that happened and had followed Brian a few months prior to him coming over here. His story still devastates me when I think about it.
He is talking about Keefer and Matthes if I had to pick...
I was at the stadium as well. Not only in the stadium but I was on track flagging, it wasn't in my section, so I didn't even see it. I remember seeing his bike on the start and I never saw him come through my section.
^^ As stated- RT sued the motocross track on behalf of his son. Not the insurance company, not made up by Cooksey…Actually it is exactly as Cooksey reported…
Had to be sued twice? Look at the dates.
Not saying you're wrong but do you know what it would look like on those forms if it was the insurance company behind it?
I was an insurance adjuster for many years and know in the subrogation world they like to make it seem like it's the insured suing when it's them behind it.
Those screenshots add absolutely no new information to this thread. There was never a question that Taylor is the named Plaintiff. The question is whether it is a subrogation claim or not. The Plaintiff would be named the same either way.
You guys can keep twisting yourself into a pretzel for RT if you want, but I know for a fact, it wasn’t for the insurance company. RT sued LACR for his son. I won’t hold it against Zach, but RT and Eks can kiss my arse
Oh maybe it was Keefer in RTs son’s 50 for the LL qualifier? Keefer is fast on an 85.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you know for a fact, tell us how you know.
"I know but I can't say how." has never been a good enough source around here so it's not gonna work this time either.
Tell us how you know or all we can assume is that your speculating just like everyone else.
If you know for a fact why not show that proof so everyone here can the proof and finally have a definite answer?
Regardless of how this turns out, it would be beneficial for the industry to analyze what tracks (and landowners) do get sued for so others can try to avoid those situations.
I've said it before, medical and liability insurance are the biggest threat to the sports future.
Pit Row
Why would insurance go after a lump sum of was it 750k? Wouldn't they go after medical expenses? Why would someone have a NDA if they wernt trying to hide something? These are some things that seem odd with this case.
It seems like an insurance company would only be able to sue to recover actual medical expenses, which would have to be listed under the damages in the claim? Or at least an estimate of expenses tied to a $ number for "future" potential expenses?
Don't know anything about this case, but if the insurance company is suing I would not think they would sue to make a profit. Only to recover actual damages? Asking this as a question, not making a statement.
Im with Lungbutter.
Speak up about your sources Dan
Jeez Dan lighten up.
I don't know either party . Just asked a fair question about subrogation language in a court filing.
If you have hard hitting inside info-sources then by all means grace us with it!
Usually it's through a sister's boyfriend's best friend's uncle's third wife's son. Just sayin
If you owned a track in anywhere USA, would you let anyone from that family ride? I wouldn't let them swim in my pool!
I was told by someone I trust this morning that knows a bunch of people involved that “the insurance company has nothing to do with this, RT did this on his own in his kids name.” Unfortunately, they’re not willing to post on here or give up their name and I’m not an asshole that will blow them out. They despise track suing riders as well, and they wanted me to know I’m not going to have to eat all my words later. I’m not going with the “trust me” line, so take that for what it is. I’m sure enough to post my definitive take on here without worry of being proven wrong, but I don’t expect that to be enough for most.
You’ve also got all the proof you need in the filing, people just don’t want to believe it so they’re going with “Well, 1 out of every 1000 times an insurance company sues, they’re not on the lawsuit as plaintiffs and hire random outside counsel and RT might be that 1.”
If that’s not enough, there are 100’s of people in this industry people close to RT that talk to him now and talked to him about this long before the NDA and the best defense you see in this thread is “How do you know it’s not the insurance.” They all know it wasn’t the insurance OR they’d be on here defending him with more than “How do you know it’s not the insurance.”
Look, we have a connection with Indian Dunes, but either post your proof RT is behind this or stop posting hypebole.
It is odd that its a pretty round number. But I have no idea if that is common when an insurance co is involved.
But I don't doubt that the medical bills could have been that high. I had an infection that resulted in a lot of time stuck in a hospital, and multiple surgeries. On just my foot by the same surgeon and it was 100's of thousands of dollars.
I just feel like people should wait until there is info that 100% shows who is behind the lawsuit before they do damage to a persons reputation and company that will be very difficult to fix. Since there is the strong possibility that it could be an insurance company behind the suit. Just as strong of a possibility as it being the Taylors behind it.
The NDA could be part of the policy and not a separate thing. Meaning that when he signed up for the policy he agreed that in the event of an accident he would not disclose any info that could make it harder for the insurance co to sue. And could be worded so that they would have to repay the claims that had been paid by insurance. I vaguely remember something worded like that in the last policy I read for my mothers car insurance.
Think about how You would feel if You were on a jury, or a judge deciding a case. If You thought that the injured person was getting the funds, You may be more sympathetic. And be more likely to side for a father of an injured kid than for a giant insurance company. Other than people who sell insurance, who likes insurance companies?
If the Taylor's end up being the ones behind the lawsuit, than think whatever You want about them. I have no dog in this fight. I just would hate to see the level of damage to Rich's company name that could result from this , IF he has nothing to do with it. If he is behind the suit I can understand the strong feelings against him and his company. And I would not argue that anybody should not be bothered by that. I just feel like it might not be as simple as some people posting on here think it might be.
I just hope that we do learn what the real story is. At this point if Rich is not behind it, it might be worth the penalty for breaking whatever NDA may be involved to clear his company name. I feel like it could be a big hit if things stay as open to interpretation as they are now. Everybody wants everything right away. And is very quick to condemn. If it turns out the Insurance was behind it, this thread would fade away. Not as many people will share the info clearing Riches name ( if that is what happens) as have shared the video that is going around now. And just the chance that he could be behind it, may be reason enough to sway somebody away from buying his products.
So if the insurance co sues on his behalf the settlement would go to the insurance co to make them whole. If the individual sues and a settlement is reached the money goes to the individual.
Why would the individual not be able to discuss a settlement if the money went to an insurance co?
Why not say “ look we got zero from the settlement “
In this case, there have been some things posted that say there is still more court dates that are set. So maybe after those dates , they could come out and say that. But up until then , they could risk costing the insurance co the case but talking about it. Or open themselves up to being sued by the insurance Co.
If there has been a final settlement , I don't know why somebody would not be able to say something that could indicate who was behind the lawsuit. But I don't know. SO I'm not saying that there could not be a reason either.
I can agree with you. I posted earlier that I spoke with a family member with 20+ years in the medical insurance business and a friend that's a lawyer. With everything I've gathered it looks to me like he is behind this. But I could be completely wrong.
Post a reply to: LACR lawsuit