Notifications
Clear all

Why California’s minimum car insurance might not be enough

659 Posts
615 Users
0 Reactions
17.4 K Views
leadership_hannah
Posts: 27
(@leadership_hannah)
Eminent Member
Joined:

- Yeah, I’m with you on the repair costs being wild. My friend barely scraped a BMW’s bumper and the bill was over $3k. The $5k property damage minimum seems almost useless if you’re unlucky.

- One thing I’m still not totally clear on: does raising liability limits really protect you if you don’t have much in assets? Like, if you’re a student living paycheck to paycheck, is it worth paying extra every month? Not saying it isn’t, just trying to figure out if it’s more for people with stuff to lose.

- Also, I’ve noticed some insurance companies push a lot of extras that don’t seem necessary. Roadside, rental, etc. I get wanting to be covered, but sometimes it feels like they’re just upselling. Liability seems like the one area where cutting corners could actually bite you though.

- I used to think minimum was fine since “I’m a careful driver,” but after seeing how expensive even tiny accidents get... yeah, starting to rethink that logic.


Reply
painter68
Posts: 17
(@painter68)
Active Member
Joined:

Raising your liability limits does make sense for some, but honestly, if you’re just scraping by, it’s not always practical. I’ve had a few tickets and my rates are already through the roof, so adding more coverage just isn’t realistic for me right now. If you don’t have assets, they can’t take what you don’t have... though you could end up with wage garnishment or a nasty judgment hanging over you. It’s a risk, but sometimes the extra monthly cost just isn’t doable. I get why people stick with the minimum, even if it’s not ideal.


Reply
william_wanderer
Posts: 13
(@william_wanderer)
Active Member
Joined:

I totally get where you’re coming from. I’ve been in the same boat—tickets, high rates, and just trying to keep my head above water. You said:

If you don’t have assets, they can’t take what you don’t have... though you could end up with wage garnishment or a nasty judgment hanging over you.

That’s the part that always messes with my head. Like, yeah, I don’t own a house or anything major, but I do have a job and I’m trying to build up some savings. If something big happened and the insurance didn’t cover it all, would they really come after my wages? Or is that more of a worst-case scenario thing that doesn’t happen much?

I’ve heard some people say it’s rare unless you really cause a huge accident, but others act like it’s super common. Anyone actually dealt with this? Just trying to figure out if I should be stressing about this or just accept the risk for now...


Reply
crypto2216282
Posts: 21
(@crypto2216282)
Eminent Member
Joined:

Yeah, that’s the part that worries me too. Here’s what I’ve learned poking around:

- Wage garnishment isn’t super common, but it does happen if you get sued and lose, and you can’t pay the judgment.
- Even if you don’t have a house or big assets, they can still go after your paycheck or even your bank account, depending on the state.
- The minimum coverage in California is honestly pretty low if you’re in a serious accident. Medical bills add up fast, and if you hit someone who sues, you could be on the hook for way more than your policy covers.

I’ve never been through it myself, but I know someone who had their wages garnished for a few years after a bad wreck. It wasn’t instant, but it happened eventually. Makes me nervous enough to carry more than the minimum, even if it stings the wallet.


Reply
vintage_shadow
Posts: 7
(@vintage_shadow)
Active Member
Joined:

Not gonna lie, I get why people want more coverage, but I’m not totally convinced it’s always worth it for everyone. Here’s my take:

-

“The minimum coverage in California is honestly pretty low if you’re in a serious accident. Medical bills add up fast, and if you hit someone who sues, you could be on the hook for way more than your policy covers.”

- True, but if you don’t have much in the way of assets (like me—my car is worth less than my phone), what are they really gonna take? You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. I mean, yeah, wage garnishment is a thing, but it’s not like they’re coming for your lunch money overnight.

- I’ve had minimum coverage for years and (knock on wood) haven’t had any issues. Most of the people I know are in the same boat. The one guy who got sued had a house and some savings, so he was a target. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, there’s not much incentive for lawyers to chase you down.

- The cost difference between minimum and higher coverage isn’t nothing. For some of us, that extra $30-50 a month is groceries or gas. It’s not just “stings the wallet”—it’s “do I eat ramen again this week?”

- Not saying it’s smart to go barebones forever, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. If things change and I magically get rich (or even just stable), maybe I’ll bump it up.

I get the anxiety about worst-case scenarios, but sometimes it feels like insurance companies play on that fear to upsell us. Just my two cents from the cheap seats...


Reply
Page 86 / 132
Share:
Scroll to Top