Guess it depends on your comfort level and how much you rely on your car day-to-day.
Honestly, that’s the key right there. I’ve seen way too many folks gamble with liability only, then get blindsided when their car gets totaled and they’re left with nothing. If you can’t afford to replace your ride out of pocket, full coverage is just common sense. Liability’s fine for a beater, but with anything newer, you’re rolling the dice. Peace of mind isn’t just a slogan—it’s real when you’re staring at a wrecked car and a fat repair bill.
Had to laugh reading this because I learned the hard way. Drove my “trusty” Corolla for years with just liability, thinking I was being smart. Then a deer decided to play chicken with me on Highway 7. Spoiler: the deer won. Car was toast, insurance paid nothing, and I spent months bumming rides from my cousin. Full coverage feels expensive until you’re walking to work in August... just saying.
Full coverage feels expensive until you’re walking to work in August... just saying.
Yeah, learned that lesson real quick. Just bought my first car and almost skipped full coverage because the price looked nuts. Decided to bite the bullet after hearing stories like this. Here’s what I figured out:
- Liability only covers what you hit, not your own car.
- One random accident (like a deer or hail) and you’re on your own.
- Paying a little more up front beats scrambling for rides or cash later.
Not fun paying more every month, but being stuck without a car sounds way worse.
Honestly, I get why people go for full coverage, but sometimes it just doesn’t make sense, especially if your car isn’t worth much. Like, if you’re driving a beater that’s barely worth $2k, paying extra every month adds up fast. I did liability only on my old Civic and just kept an emergency fund in case something happened. Not saying it’s for everyone, but sometimes the math works out better that way. Just gotta weigh the risk vs. reward, you know?
I get where you’re coming from, especially with a car that’s not worth much. I’ve had my share of “character cars” (read: barely hanging on), and I’ve definitely crunched the numbers on liability vs. full coverage. But here’s something I always ask myself before dropping down to liability only: what happens if I’m at fault in a wreck and my car’s totaled? Sure, it’s just a $2k beater, but replacing it out of pocket can still sting, especially if you need wheels to get to work or school.
You mentioned this:
I did liability only on my old Civic and just kept an emergency fund in case something happened.
That’s smart if you’re disciplined about saving, but I know a lot of folks (myself included, sometimes) who *intend* to keep that emergency fund but end up dipping into it for other stuff. Life happens, right? Suddenly that cushion isn’t as thick as you thought when you actually need it.
Another thing—full coverage isn’t just about your own car. Depending on your policy, it can help with things like uninsured motorists or even rental reimbursement if your car’s out of commission. Arkansas has a decent chunk of uninsured drivers, so that’s something to think about too.
I guess my approach is more step-by-step:
1. Figure out exactly what your car is worth (not just what you *think* it’s worth).
2. Check how much extra full coverage would actually cost per month.
3. Be honest about whether you’ll really keep that emergency fund untouched.
4. Think about how fast you’d need to replace your car if something happened—could you get by without one for a while?
5. Factor in local risks (like weather, theft rates, uninsured drivers).
For me, peace of mind sometimes outweighs the math, even if it costs a bit more. But yeah, everyone’s risk tolerance is different. Just don’t forget those “what if” scenarios... they have a way of sneaking up when you least expect it.
