This is decades old info but jic it's useful.
In 1985 I got a Regional B license (Spenard-David school at Shannonville). I changed jobs at that time, applied for extra group life at the new company, had to fill out a detailed form about F2000 racing, max speeds, etc. and I was given the extra life insurance.
About 10 yeas after that I was competing in TSD rallies, on open roads at less than legal speeds. I changed jobs, applied for extra group life, didn't mention the TSD rallying, but did mention that I occasionally marshal at performance rally events, which is safer than shopping at Loblaw's, imo. My additional coverage was denied. Go figure.
The perennial confusion is bizarre. Car racing has been going on for decades, insurance companies and banks have sponsored Formula One, so why isn't there a standard way to handle this by now? A better question might be why organizations like the ASN-Canada, or their equivalents over the years, haven't sought out exactly the kind of expert legal advice that's required to settle the issue?
We seem to always approach insurance companies like shy school boys who have done something wrong. Maybe, in actual fact, we're a damned good client base to have.
Has anyone collected and analyzed the kind of statistical evidence that their actuaries require to determine rates? Are people who race on weekends actually greater risks or are they not?
Why do people who are caught speeding on the 401 have their insurance rates increased? Is there any statistical evidence to justify that?
How can it be that these questions weren't settled decades ago?
And if the insurance industry really is a competitive business, why hasn't there been a company out there yet that has done these kinds of analyses? If there had been, and they decided to actively advertize to racers, all they'd have to is advertize the fact in one racing magazine, the info would spread like wildfire so fast that they couldn't handle all the applications.
Sorry, rant over.