This discussion isn't really about full coverage, it's about collision.
The value of the vehicle determines if collision makes sense.
For me, I usually drop collision when the amount I would lose if it's totalled is small enough that it wouldn't be a huge loss, say $3k or so.
I also have a higher deductible for collision than for comprehensive, because I figure a collision claim is more likely to be my fault, so I would deserve the higher expense for my mistake.
The value of the vehicle determines if collision makes sense.
For me, I usually drop collision when the amount I would lose if it's totalled is small enough that it wouldn't be a huge loss, say $3k or so.
I also have a higher deductible for collision than for comprehensive, because I figure a collision claim is more likely to be my fault, so I would deserve the higher expense for my mistake.
iversonyin
Diamond Member
- Aug 12, 2004
- 3,303
- 0
- 76
Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
see my thread about my GF's accident in my car.
a) I know it depends on where you live but, IIRC, it's illegal to not have collision coverage here in Colorado.
b) Sure woulda sucked for me if the guy took off, was never caught, and I didn't have full coverage
c) Woulda equally sucked if neither of us had full coverage.
(I'll admit I'm sketchy on the differences between full and comprehensive coverage)
Let's pretend you have a premium payment of $600, so $100 monthly, and they jack rates by 50% for this sort of thing, which becomes a $150 monthly payment.
So....would you rather eat $20,000 upfront due to the fact that your nice new car has been totaled (like in my case), plus another [whatever you can afford] you'll have to sink into another car (which would not be alot in my case). ...or eat only the extra $3,000 it'll cost you in insurace over 5 years, plus whatever extra (if any) you choose to sink in to a replacement car.
Three years ago I was involved in a head-on, not my fault, my vehicle was totalled. The other driver also had no insurance. My Insurance company (Allstate) paid about $125% the value of my vehicle (which they consdered to be market value, medical bills, and my insurance did not go up. I still pay roughly $35 a month per vehicle for full coverage. I was 33 at the time for the record.
Its all risk-based. The higher risk THEY think you are, means the more you pay. Some things that go into that include credit report (maybe), type of car you drive, do you have kids who drive, where you live, have you made claims before, etc.....
Obviously they're in it to make money.......
Originally posted by: Stunt
Haha, BlancoNino is getting ripped on hard...
I think I'm missing some background on this guy.
Probably so, but note my signature. Even the mods get in on this....
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Actually my insurance company is not in it to make money. Any profit they make is returned to the policyholders in a dividend check. They don't insure high risk drivers. You can't get a policy with them if you've had a ticket in the last 3 years. If you have a bunch of accidents or get a bunch of tickets after you have a policy with them they'll drop you, but they won't raise your rates just because you get in an accident or get a ticket.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
They only insure in New Jersey, sorry. We have the highest insurance rates in the country (at least we used to), but New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance has the cheapest rates in the state because they don't insure high risk drivers.Usually with low rates you get bad service. When my wife's car was totalled we didn't think they were offering us enough to replace it (based on what we could find on Craigslist). She called them up and told them that and they said they'd use "a different formula to calculate the value" and offered us $3k more!
I :heart: NJMI
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,586
- 986
- 126
Originally posted by: dug777
I stand by my initial post. The OP is a jackass
I agree with Dug on this one. :thumbsup:
BTW-Why haven't you joined the Anti-SUV Brigade yet Dug? After all, you were the founder of this fine organization. Tell you what, I'll save you a place on the board of directors for when you're ready. :laugh:
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
If you finance your car, you need full coverage... no bank is going to want to take the risk that you'll total a 30k car and say "oh well... at least I only paid of $1000 on it. The bank can take the hit."
If your car is paid for, (or you have an unsecured type of loan for it, ie personal loan rather than auto loan), the option is up to you. And, in order to adequately explore all your options, you need to be decent in math. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. i.e. should you go with a higher deductible to lower your rate? Well, that depends. If you choose a $500 increase in the deductible, but it only lowers your rate $10 a year, then you'd have to go 50 years without an accident to come out ahead. (ignoring accumulated interest if you were to invest that $10) For me, it was rather simple: I choose not to drive all the car I can afford, and instead pay cash for $3000 or cheaper vehicles. I only bother with liability. There are virtually no car thefts in my area, and the driving conditions I'm in each day make it incredibly unlikely that I'll be involved in an accident - my fault or someone else's fault. If I lived closer to a major city, and dealt with more traffic, I'd probably change the type of coverage I have.
If your car is paid for, (or you have an unsecured type of loan for it, ie personal loan rather than auto loan), the option is up to you. And, in order to adequately explore all your options, you need to be decent in math. Otherwise, it's a crap shoot. i.e. should you go with a higher deductible to lower your rate? Well, that depends. If you choose a $500 increase in the deductible, but it only lowers your rate $10 a year, then you'd have to go 50 years without an accident to come out ahead. (ignoring accumulated interest if you were to invest that $10) For me, it was rather simple: I choose not to drive all the car I can afford, and instead pay cash for $3000 or cheaper vehicles. I only bother with liability. There are virtually no car thefts in my area, and the driving conditions I'm in each day make it incredibly unlikely that I'll be involved in an accident - my fault or someone else's fault. If I lived closer to a major city, and dealt with more traffic, I'd probably change the type of coverage I have.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
i just got my renewel a couple days ago, $1600+ for the legal minimum. the mass. division of insurance are a bunch of communists.
Financially, I cannot replace my car right now. So if anything happens to it, no matter who's fault, I need it fixed or full value reimbursement if it's totaled. Hence I have full coverage w/ rental option.
The point is trading risk for premium.
The cost for insurance to replace your car will always be more than the cost to replace your car * the probability of your car needing to be replaced. It has to be, otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business.
Insurance companies exist, however, because people are risk averse. They think about the worst case scenario and thus would much rather take a little pain every few months than risk taking lots of pain in the event of an at-fault accident, no matter how remote the possibility.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
- Dec 28, 2001
- 11,391
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: mugs
Usually with low rates you get bad service. When my wife's car was totalled we didn't think they were offering us enough to replace it (based on what we could find on Craigslist). She called them up and told them that and they said they'd use "a different formula to calculate the value" and offered us $3k more!
I :heart: NJMI
Actually State Farm is based on the same principle as well - it's just that there are som stipulations for being a national carrier . . ..
Anyhow, to the OP - "Full Coverage" in insurance is a myth. I know the Agents use that term a lot but there are still some things that all insurance companies cannot cover (think something like War): and there are a lot more coverages than just collision; medical, comprehensive, rental, emergency roadside, etc. etc.
The closest thing to getting "full coverage" would be getting a umbrella policy amendment included in your policy . . ..
I love our "no fault" insurance here in Michigan. I pay almost $1000 a year to insure my POS 91 Explorer at the state minimums. If it's a "no-fault" state, shouldn't insurance be completely unnecessary? Bah, everything related to vehicles is screwed up in Michigan.
drifter106
Golden Member
- Mar 14, 2004
- 1,261
- 57
- 91
Originally posted by: KLin
I agree with Dug. Don't come back.
Your juvenile answers don't go very far...he asked a simple question, if you can't answer it why don't you STAY away.
For me its piece of mind, you never know what the future holds.
drifter106
Golden Member
- Mar 14, 2004
- 1,261
- 57
- 91
Originally posted by: dug777
I stand by my initial post. The OP is a jackass
Really disappointed in your responses to this question dug. I have seen you post in other forums and usually enjoy your responses. You obviously are showing your lack of maturity here in addressing his question or trying to be funny. Either way it takes away from what he is asking help on.
He has a valid point, many people are on a fixed income and coming up with the extra money for better coverage is tough. I have found that trying for a high deductable, with full coverage, saves a few bucks and yet I would be covered it I had a catastrophic accident.
because you have proven to be a liability and should foot a larger portion of the bill than those who havnt ?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter