Yeah, I hear you on the repair costs—my ‘72 Chevelle’s parts are pricey, but at least there’s no lane assist sensor to fry if I tap a curb. Here’s the thing though:
- Minimum coverage is fine if you’re driving a beater and can walk away from it, but if you’ve got anything worth more than a set of tires, it’s risky.
- Even “minor” accidents can rack up bills way past what the state minimum covers.
- Liability doesn’t help if your own ride gets totaled. Learned that the hard way when a tree branch took out my hood—insurance shrugged.
I get wanting to save cash, but sometimes cheap insurance is just expensive later.
Liability doesn’t help if your own ride gets totaled. Learned that the hard way when a tree branch took out my hood—insurance shrugged.
That’s rough. Honestly, I’ve always wondered where folks draw the line on what’s “worth” insuring more than the minimum. Like, is it just about the car’s value, or do you factor in how much you rely on your ride day-to-day? My last car was a total beater, but if it got wrecked, I’d have been totally stuck for work and road trips. Made me rethink the whole “just liability” thing, even though the car itself wasn’t worth much on paper.
Anybody ever actually crunch the numbers and decide full coverage was overkill, or did it end up saving you when something random happened? Sometimes it feels like insurance is just a gamble either way...
I’m actually in the middle of my first insurance hunt and it’s wild how much “just liability” is pushed as the cheap, smart option. But like you said,
—mine’s a 2004 Corolla that’s seen better days, but if it dies, I’m basically stranded. Anyone else ever just go with full coverage out of sheer paranoia, even if it feels like overkill? Or am I just being dramatic about my old beater?the car itself wasn’t worth much on paper
Full Coverage for a Beater: Paranoid or Practical?
It’s honestly not dramatic at all to want full coverage, even on a 2004 Corolla. I’ve seen folks with cars barely holding together who still go full coverage just for the peace of mind. If losing the car would leave you stranded, that’s a legit concern—liability won’t help if it gets totaled in a hit-and-run or some random accident. Sometimes “cheap” isn’t actually smart if it means you’re stuck walking to work. And hey, Corollas are basically immortal anyway… might as well keep it protected while it soldiers on.
I get the peace of mind angle, but I’m not sure full coverage always makes sense for an older car. Like you said,
That’s true if you can’t afford to replace the car at all. But with a 2004 Corolla, the payout from insurance after your deductible might not be much anyway. Sometimes the premiums over a couple years end up costing more than what you’d get if it was totaled.“Sometimes ‘cheap’ isn’t actually smart if it means you’re stuck walking to work.”
I’ve been in that spot where my car was barely worth $2k and I just kept liability. Figured if something happened, I’d just have to scramble for a cheap replacement, but at least I wasn’t paying extra every month. It really depends on your savings and how much risk you’re willing to take on. For me, I’d rather put that money aside for repairs or a future car than hand it over to the insurance company. But yeah, if being without wheels would totally wreck your life, maybe full coverage is worth it... Just feels like a toss-up sometimes.
