That's exactly correct.Full coverage is unnecessary if the loss of the car would not be detrimental financial burden.
If you have a car worth 5k and you total it tomorrow, you're out 5k. If that 5k is an amount that you can easily withdraw from a bank account to buy a new car, then full coverage may not be necessary for you. But if you can't afford to replace your car tomorrow (and assuming insurance isn't prohibitively expensive), you'd be stupid to not carry full coverage.
Don't just think of it straight cash. You should include credit as well.If you have a car worth 5k and you total it tomorrow, you're out 5k. If that 5k is an amount that you can easily withdraw from a bank account to buy a new car, then full coverage may not be necessary for you. But if you can't afford to replace your car tomorrow (and assuming insurance isn't prohibitively expensive), you'd be stupid to not carry full coverage.
you need to compare the extra cost of carrying collision vs a total loss on the vehicle.
On my beater car, worth about 2 grand, it was an $18/month premium to carry collision. this equates to 216 bucks a year. My deductible is $500, so essentially was it worth it for me to pay 216 bucks a year to protect me from a potential $1500 loss? no it wasn't so I simply carried liability and dropped collision from my policy
The problem with full coverage is that there is an adverse selection issue. People who are bad drivers are (in theory) more likely to buy full coverage. As a result the premium for full coverage is based on the risk of a worse than average driver. This makes it a bad deal for an average driver or better than average driver.
The problem with full coverage is that there is an adverse selection issue. People who are bad drivers are (in theory) more likely to buy full coverage. As a result the premium for full coverage is based on the risk of a worse than average driver. This makes it a bad deal for an average driver or better than average driver.
uh, what?
People get full coverage because the yare leasing/paying for their car and their loan agreement states that they carry full coverage.
Are you guys factoring in with liability only medical payments for yourself if you cause an accident?
This post 10 times over, spot on.That's a very stupid generalization.
Full coverage is unnecessary if the loss of the car would not be detrimental financial burden.
If you have a car worth 5k and you total it tomorrow, you're out 5k. If that 5k is an amount that you can easily withdraw from a bank account to buy a new car, then full coverage may not be necessary for you. But if you can't afford to replace your car tomorrow (and assuming insurance isn't prohibitively expensive), you'd be stupid to not carry full coverage.
Dumbest post I've ever read here. Congrats, u am stupid.
This is taught in every first year microeconomics class in the county. Insurance is the classic example of adverse selection (and moral hazard as well). You're the one who sounds stupid.
Go find stats on who carries "full coverage" -> You will find it has more to do with who has a loan on the vehicle rather than what you suggest.
I have full coverage on my Jeep that's worth about $3000. I can't afford to buy another vehicle out of pocket.
The problem with full coverage is that there is an adverse selection issue. People who are bad drivers are (in theory) more likely to buy full coverage. As a result the premium for full coverage is based on the risk of a worse than average driver. This makes it a bad deal for an average driver or better than average driver.
Ridiculous. You can be the best driver and still have your car wrecked by factors outside your own control.