Romain Grosjean, Haas, Sepang, 2017

Sepang pays Haas compensation for Grosjean’s 2017 crash

2017 Malaysian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Haas has received a compensation payment from the Sepang International Circuit for the damage caused to one of its cars in a crash last year.

The team has been in negotiations with the former Formula 1 venue for almost a year since Romain Grosjean hit a loose drain cover at turn 13 and crashed heavily.

Team principal Guenther Steiner confirmed today they have received a payment from the the circuit’s insurers.

“We settled, the insurance were very good to deal with and we are happy,” he said. “The insurance was very professional, they stood up for their responsibility.”

Despite the long wait for a settlement, Steiner said he was “not surprised” by the outcome.

“It’s [been] a year now roughly, it’s a long time this case. I think it’s the first [time] something like this happened.

“It got sorted, they were good to deal with. There was so many parties involved as well. These things take always time. An insurance claim is never quick.”

The value of the payment has not been disclosed, but Steiner confirmed team only sought to cover the damage done to Grosjean’s VF-17 chassis.

“We were not looking for anything else. They agreed it wasn’t our felt, there was something that went wrong and that’s why they have insurance.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2018 F1 season

Browse all 2018 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...
Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

11 comments on “Sepang pays Haas compensation for Grosjean’s 2017 crash”

  1. Good to know! It took a long time but at least it went the right way. Sets a precedent too

  2. Button had damage in Monaco a couple of years ago with a drain cover coming loose, must have been after Ron left otherwise he would be front & centre for payment :)

    It does set a precedent. That’s fine is the track is unsafe but next thing you know if one driver is given a penalty for a collision the other team may ask for the damaged parts to be paid for.

    1. It does set a precedent. That’s fine is the track is unsafe but next thing you know if one driver is given a penalty for a collision the other team may ask for the damaged parts to be paid for.

      In which court would that case be conducted? Would that depend on the circuit location? Or the country sued team is based in?
      I think the precedent is a powerful argument only in UK, US and possibly other former British colonies.
      Also, I’m sure there are already some rules in place to counter possibility for teams to sue each other after crashes.

    2. @garns, retirements due to damage from drain covers is not uncommon – Barrichello retired from the 2010 Monaco GP after a loose drain cover smashed the front suspension.

      I have a recollection that Sergio Perez’s retirement during the 2011 Malaysian GP was thought to have been due to a drain cover puncturing his chassis and destroying the electrical systems – in that case I believe that it might have written off his chassis altogether (it did so much damage to the front bulkhead that the chassis was unrepairable).

      However, this is the first time that I can recall a team publicly stating they received compensation from the circuit owners for damage to their car.

      1. @anon ”puncturing his chassis”
        – That’s a good (and a bit weird-ish) wording, LOL. I’ve never seen/heard the word ‘puncture’ being used to refer anything else but a damaged tyre.

        1. Puncture means to make a small hole in something, or to get a small hole in something according dictionary. Generally speaking it is a word used in reference of tyres but its not just restricted to that one object.

    3. May be a good moment for those taken out by GRO at spain to step forward

    4. The precedent that was set was that if the race circuit provides the track for the race it is their job to make it safe to use. If something breaks then the track has insurance for that. Could be something like hard winds that cause a tent or spectator stand to collapse, loose piece of advertisement board flies with the wind and hits someone. Or something with the track breaks in such way that a car is damaged.

      Car vs car has been very well defined legally I think. Even if one car hits other 100% on purpose both parties still pay their own costs. Car vs track is different thing. If a car spins into a guard rail the team or their insurance most likely needs to pay to have it fixed. If a kerb comes loose or drain cover sticks up and breaks something on a car then the track and its insurance need to pay.

      Whether there is some gray area with the car vs track collisions I don’t know. It looks pretty straightforward if you ignore the fact that in 99% of the cases the car owner and the track are from different countries. Only weird cases I can imagine if a safety car hits a competitor or a car. Or two cars hit the same bit of wall. Do they split the costs then?

  3. Nearly full twelve months on, LOL.

    1. @jerejj – it’s the pinnacle of insurance claims 😋

  4. Tom (@tangooscarmike)
    27th September 2018, 19:27

    The damages from Baku will however not be covered by Marcus Ericsson’s insurance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.