Honestly, I get why people want more coverage, but sometimes I wonder if it’s overkill for everyone. We’ve had the minimum for years and (knock on wood) haven’t had any issues. I mean, yeah, if you get into a big accident, it could get expensive, but for a lot of folks just driving around town, is it really worth paying double every month? I dunno... feels like insurance companies are always trying to upsell.
I mean, yeah, if you get into a big accident, it could get expensive, but for a lot of folks just driving around town, is it really worth paying double every month?
I totally get where you're coming from. I used to think the same way—just stick with the minimum and hope for the best. But after seeing a friend get rear-ended at a stoplight (literally just running errands), the costs piled up way past what minimum covered. Even a “small” accident can get pricey fast, especially with medical stuff. I don’t love paying more, but I sleep better knowing I’m not one fender bender away from a financial mess. Insurance companies do push extras, but sometimes the extra coverage really does make sense, especially in California where costs are wild.
Had a similar wake-up call a few years back. I’ve got a ’68 Mustang that I only take out on weekends, and for a while, I figured the minimum was fine since I barely drove it. Then some guy in a lifted truck backed into me at the grocery store—barely a scratch on his bumper, but my rear quarter panel was toast. Insurance covered almost nothing because of the minimum policy, and classic car parts aren’t cheap. Ended up paying out of pocket for most of it.
Honestly, even if you’re just driving around town, it doesn’t take much for costs to spiral. Bodywork, paint, even a quick ER visit… it adds up way faster than you’d think. I get not wanting to hand over more cash every month (I hate it too), but after that mess, I bumped up my coverage. Not just for the car, but liability too—California’s minimums are stuck in the ’70s compared to what stuff actually costs now.
Not saying everyone needs to go full coverage on every beater, but if you’ve got something you care about or just don’t want to gamble with your savings, it’s worth looking at the numbers again. The “it won’t happen to me” thing only works until it does.
California’s minimums are stuck in the ’70s compared to what stuff actually costs now.
That’s what gets me—those minimums haven’t kept up at all. I’ve always carried more than the state requires, just because I’ve seen how fast medical bills or repairs can drain your savings. But I wonder, has anyone here actually had their liability limits tested in a real-world accident? Did the extra coverage make a difference, or did it feel like overkill in hindsight? Sometimes I wonder if I’m being too cautious, but stories like yours make me think twice.
I’ve always carried more than the state requires, just because I’ve seen how fast medical bills or repairs can drain your savings.
Same here. After seeing a buddy’s classic Mustang get rear-ended, the repair bill alone was way past what basic coverage would’ve handled. It’s not just about being cautious—it’s about not getting stuck with a nightmare tab. Even a minor fender bender can spiral, especially with older cars where parts aren’t cheap or easy to find. I’d say extra coverage isn’t overkill, just practical these days.
