Alright, I'm kinda stuck here. Just got my first car (used Honda Civic, nothing fancy but I love it), and now I have to actually pick insurance. I always thought I'd just go with the cheapest thing, but now that I'm looking at the options, it's not so clear cut. Basic liability is way cheaper, but then full coverage gives me a lot more peace of mind. My dad swears by full coverage, says you never know what can happen, but some of my friends are like, "Why pay more when your car isn't even worth that much?"
Honestly, I'm torn. I don't have a ton of money right now, but also, I’m a bit accident-prone (knock on wood). Part of me thinks maybe I should just suck it up and pay more for full coverage, at least for the first year or two, just in case. But then again, is it overkill for an older car?
Curious if anyone else had to make this choice with their first car. Did you feel like you made the right call? Would you do anything differently if you could go back? I feel like I’m overthinking it but also don’t wanna get burned if something happens, you know?
Honestly, I get where you’re coming from. When I got my first car, I went with full coverage for the first couple years just for peace of mind—mainly because I was nervous about making a costly mistake. After that, once I felt more confident and the car’s value dropped, I switched to liability only. It felt like the right balance. If you’re worried about accidents and don’t have a lot saved up, full coverage can be a safety net, even if it feels like overkill at first. You’re not overthinking it—it’s a legit decision to stress over.
If you’re worried about accidents and don’t have a lot saved up, full coverage can be a safety net, even if it feels like overkill at first.
Yeah, I get that logic. I did the same thing with my first car—full coverage just felt safer, even though part of me wondered if I was just throwing money away. Thing is, insurance companies love to sell you peace of mind, but sometimes the numbers don’t add up after a few years. Once my car was worth less than what I’d pay in premiums and deductibles, I switched to liability too. It’s always a bit of a gamble, honestly.
Honestly, I’ve always thought full coverage on a beater is just handing cash to the insurance company. First car I ever had was a ‘92 Civic with more rust than paint, and I still went for full coverage because my dad insisted. Looking back, I probably paid more in premiums than the car was worth after two years. Once I got a handle on what the car was actually valued at, I dropped it to liability and never looked back.
I get why people want that extra safety net, especially if you’re tight on cash and can’t afford a big repair or replacement. But at some point, you’re just insuring peace of mind, not the car itself. If you’re driving something you care about—like a classic or something rare—then sure, full coverage makes sense. Otherwise, for most daily drivers, liability’s usually enough. Insurance companies aren’t in the business of losing money, after all...
FULL COVERAGE FELT LIKE A RIPOFF FOR ME
- Paid for full coverage on my first car (old Corolla), mostly because my mom pushed for it. Regretted it after a year—never used it, and the premiums were almost half what the car was worth.
- Switched to liability only after that. If you’re not driving something new or expensive, full coverage just drains your wallet.
- Only exception: if you literally can’t afford to replace the car if it gets totaled. Otherwise, liability’s fine. Just drive careful and don’t overthink it.