Why California’s minimum car insurance might not be enough

Had a similar debate with myself when I picked up my ‘89 Bronco. Figured it wasn’t worth much, but then I remembered a fender bender years back - my “cheap” insurance barely touched the hospital bill. Sometimes it’s not about the car, it’s about what happens after.

Had a similar wake-up call with my old ‘72 Chevelle. Thought the car’s value was low, so why bother with more coverage? Then a buddy got rear-ended and the medical bills were way more than his policy covered. It’s wild how fast costs add up, even for minor injuries. Sometimes the “cheap” route just isn’t worth the risk.

Sometimes the “cheap” route just isn’t worth the risk.

- Been there... thought I was saving a few bucks, but then you realize one ER visit costs more than my whole annual premium.
- California’s minimums are like wearing flip-flops to hike Mount Whitney - technically covers your feet, but you’re in for a world of hurt if things go sideways.
- I used to think, “Eh, my car’s old, who cares?” but it’s not just about the car. It’s the people, the bills, the lawyers... yikes.
- Upping my coverage barely changed my monthly cost, but it sure helped me sleep better. Worth looking into for peace of mind, at least.

Yeah, I used to think the minimum was fine too, but after a fender bender last year, I realized how fast costs add up. Even a “cheap” fix wasn’t so cheap. Bumping up coverage barely touched my budget, honestly. Worth it for the peace of mind.

Bumping up coverage barely touched my budget, honestly. Worth it for the peace of mind.

That’s been my experience too. I used to just go with the minimum because, well, it was cheaper and I figured “what are the odds?” But after seeing a friend get stuck with bills way over what insurance covered, I changed my tune. The extra few bucks a month really isn’t much compared to what you could be on the hook for if something goes sideways. It’s one of those things you don’t appreciate until you need it...