Here’s a weird thing I learned: in California, the minimum liability coverage for car insurance is just $15k per person for injury, $30k per accident, and $5k for property damage. Five grand barely covers a fender bender with a newer car, let alone anything serious. Kinda wild how low that is, right? Has anyone actually had to use their liability coverage here—did it cover everything or did you get stuck paying out of pocket?
Yeah, it’s honestly kind of shocking how low those numbers are. I’ve always thought the minimums were more of a “barely legal” thing than actual protection. A friend of mine rear-ended someone in LA a couple years back—just a minor accident, but the other car was a newer SUV and the repairs were way over $5k. Insurance covered the minimum, but he had to pay the rest out of pocket. Ever since, I’ve carried way more than the minimum. It’s just not worth the risk, especially with how expensive cars are now.
I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve seen a lot of folks over-insure and end up paying way more than they ever use. Not saying minimums are perfect, but:
- Most minor accidents don’t even hit the minimums.
- If you’ve got an older car, sometimes it’s just not worth the extra premium.
-
— that’s definitely rough, but not everyone’s driving around LA with Teslas and Escalades.“the other car was a newer SUV and the repairs were way over $5k”
It’s a gamble either way. Just gotta weigh your own risk tolerance and budget.
Yeah, I’m with you on not wanting to overpay for coverage nobody ever uses. With two kids and an older minivan, I’ve always just carried the minimums. The premiums for full coverage were almost double and didn’t make sense for a car worth maybe $3k. That said, it does make me pause sometimes—like if I rear-end someone with a luxury car, I could be on the hook for a lot more than my policy covers. It’s a bit of a balancing act... I just hope my luck holds out.
Title: Why California’s minimum car insurance might not be enough
I get where you’re coming from about not wanting to pay more than you have to, especially if your car isn’t worth much. But honestly, the minimums here are a joke. I’ve had two accidents in the last five years—neither one was huge, but both times the other car was way more expensive than mine. First time, I rear-ended a Tesla (barely tapped it, but those sensors and paint jobs are nuts), and the repair bill was over $7k. My insurance only covered $5k for property damage, so I had to cough up the rest out of pocket. That stung.
Second time, it was a three-car pileup on the 405. Nobody seriously hurt, but the medical bills added up fast. My policy barely covered half of what they wanted for ambulance and ER visits. Ended up on a payment plan for the rest. Not fun.
I get that full coverage can feel like throwing money away if your ride isn’t worth much, but liability isn’t really about your own car—it’s about what you might owe someone else. And in California, with all these high-end cars everywhere and medical costs through the roof, those minimums just don’t cut it if you actually get into a real accident.
Honestly, I’d rather pay a bit more each month than risk getting sued or stuck with bills I can’t handle. But yeah, it’s a gamble either way. Just depends how much risk you’re willing to take on yourself.
