Full coverage - Do you still need the car to be photographed?

[amdhunter]

Let's say I bought a used car, and I insure over the net with full coverage. Is it still the norm to have to get photos of the car before they'll provide you the coverage?

 

[CurseTheSky]

It depends. If you're a female between the ages of 18 and 35 and have decent bodywork, a clean motor, and still have the title in hand, then photographing is recommended. And on the contrary, full coverage is not required and actually not recommended by many.

Otherwise, yes; full coverage and a car is recommended.




Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[nickbits]

Ive never had photos of mu car taken to get insirance. Then again, i've never bought a used car so maybe it is different.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I've bought several used cars and have never needed to submit photos for full (comprehensive) coverage. I think the OP is much mistaken.

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

I've bought several used cars and have never needed to submit photos for full (comprehensive) coverage. I think the OP is much mistaken.

ZV

Me either.

 

[boomhower]

I have once and it was because it had a rebuilt title so it was understandable.

 

[amdhunter]

I've bought several used cars and have never needed to submit photos for full (comprehensive) coverage. I think the OP is much mistaken.

ZV

When I bought my Civic, Geico had called me to take photos of the car. I remember asking them why it was necessary since I bought the car brand new...lol

The said forget it after I said that, which I was really happy for since the car was keyed the very first night I owned it.

 

[angry hampster]

Never had to. My sister's old corolla was nearly totaled and our agent took photos of it pre- and post-repair. That makes good sense though.

 

[duragezic]

Yes I had to do this last week with Geico.

Bought a used Mazda 3 and initially just transferred my existing liability insurance to it at the dealer. A day or so later I got onto Geico's site to get comprehensive and collision coverage added. After I submitted it, I got an email saying I needed a Carco photo inspection. So within a few days I got the inspection (free) and faxed the receipt and now I have full coverage.

 

[Eli]

What? I've never heard of this. I've never had anyone even look at, let alone take pictures of my car. Though, I have heard State Farm usually wants to look at the car.

I signed up with Progressive online, and that was that.

 

[amdhunter]

Yes I had to do this last week with Geico.

Bought a used Mazda 3 and initially just transferred my existing liability insurance to it at the dealer. A day or so later I got onto Geico's site to get comprehensive and collision coverage added. After I submitted it, I got an email saying I needed a Carco photo inspection. So within a few days I got the inspection (free) and faxed the receipt and now I have full coverage.

So an outside company inspected the car? I am looking at something right now but the car has been modified (ricer) somewhat. I'd hate to take photos of it...lol

 

[Zenmervolt]

What? I've never heard of this. I've never had anyone even look at, let alone take pictures of my car. Though, I have heard State Farm usually wants to look at the car.

I signed up with Progressive online, and that was that.

My family has been with State Farm since before my parents were born and none of us have ever been asked for photos of a car we were trying to insure. (Hell, my father has had the same agent since he learned to drive.) This includes the time I bought a car from out-of-state that didn't have a title anymore.

If I had to guess, there must be some flag coming up that is causing some people to need photos because the insurance company believes they're more of a risk. Perhaps they're only required for people who are below a certain credit score or something?

ZV

 

[Schadenfreude]

My family has been with State Farm since before my parents were born and none of us have ever been asked for photos of a car we were trying to insure. (Hell, my father has had the same agent since he learned to drive.) This includes the time I bought a car from out-of-state that didn't have a title anymore.

If I had to guess, there must be some flag coming up that is causing some people to need photos because the insurance company believes they're more of a risk. Perhaps they're only required for people who are below a certain credit score or something?

ZV

Coincidentally, I currently work for a State Farm agent's office - and of all the car quotes pulled/made there's never been a request for car photos regardless of credit history, outside of a loss(accident) occurring. Now I can't speak for other insurance companies/states as each state has it own laws governing insurance, but not for State Farm in Illinois. The only reason I can think of may be when/if you're classifying your vehicle as a "classic/antique" class or for special circumstances, but I've never run into that either!

But on a general basis, it's a good idea to keep photos of valuables in case of loss as proof of ownership - including cars - but not a necessity.

Btw, there's no such thing as a "full" coverage . . ..

 

[jlee]

I've bought several used cars and have never needed to submit photos for full (comprehensive) coverage. I think the OP is much mistaken.

ZV

Likewise (Progressive online).

 

[rh71]

All State instructed me to take pics of all 4 sides, the license plate and the VIN when I got full coverage. It wasn't for All State directly... they had to send them in themselves and one came back rejected because the VIN wasn't clear enough (through the glass).

 

[bruceb]

It is common here in NJ for Comprehensive or Collision coverage.
They want to know 1): The car does exist .. 2): Any preexisting damage
I just had mine photoed early Feb when I switched carriers. Nothing to hide.

 

[SunnyD]

Depends on the state. I have full collision & comp on my car, no pics required in Alabama.

New York on the other hand required it.

Same insurance company both cases.

 

[Gillbot]

the only car i've been asked for photos is in the sig, and that was a special policy.

 

[Anubis]

Ive never had photos of mu car taken to get insirance. Then again, i've never bought a used car so maybe it is different.

i think it varies by state/provider, new and used here you have to have it done

im in NY

 

[duragezic]

So an outside company inspected the car? I am looking at something right now but the car has been modified (ricer) somewhat. I'd hate to take photos of it...lol

Yes. The company was Carco, but they list places in your area that actually do it. In my case, there was several used car lots, a performance/custom audio place, etc.

I think it's just something Geico requires (edit: looks like a state thing)? My credit isn't amazing but it has no issues, and the car is no a salvage title.

Anyway, it took 5 min for paperwork and 2 min to take the pictures (they do everything) and was free. So if it is required for you, I don't see any issue with it.

It makes sense really. Otherwise, someone could buy a used car for cheap because it had damage, but if the damage to it that was not reported by its VIN #, the person could turn around and make a claim and get it fixed.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Yes. The company was Carco, but they list places in your area that actually do it. In my case, there was several used car lots, a performance/custom audio place, etc.

I think it's just something Geico requires (edit: looks like a state thing)? My credit isn't amazing but it has no issues, and the car is no a salvage title.

Anyway, it took 5 min for paperwork and 2 min to take the pictures (they do everything) and was free. So if it is required for you, I don't see any issue with it.

It makes sense really. Otherwise, someone could buy a used car for cheap because it had damage, but if the damage to it that was not reported by its VIN #, the person could turn around and make a claim and get it fixed.

I suppose so, BUT - and I'm basing this on my (somewhat short) time working as a claims adjuster - if there's anything fishy about the claim (car was insured immediately prior to loss, there's paint transfer from another vehicle but no loss from the other side reported, there's obvious signs of rust/paint-overs/correction over the damage, the story doesn't match, etc.) the company will investigate fraud and that might turn out ugly for the person.

Of course, even if you receive the benefit of doubt from your insurance company, the claim you've filed may come back to haunt you - and your premiums - down the road.