Choosing between basic liability and full coverage for your first car—what did you go with?

I get where you’re coming from, but honestly, I just went with liability on my first car.

I get the logic, but for me, even with an old car, I always lean toward full coverage. Had a buddy’s “beater” get sideswiped in a parking lot—no one left a note, and he was out of luck. The peace of mind’s worth the extra bucks to me, even if the car’s not fancy.

- Totally get where you’re coming from.
- Even with older cars, I usually go for full coverage too—especially if I’ve put any work into them.
- Had a ‘92 Caprice that got rear-ended at a stoplight. Other driver took off, and liability wouldn’t have helped me at all.
- For me, it’s not just about the car’s value, but the hassle and cost if something random happens.
- That said, if the car’s truly a throwaway, sometimes liability makes sense... but I’d rather not roll the dice.

For me, it’s not just about the car’s value, but the hassle and cost if something random happens.

Totally agree—sometimes the peace of mind is worth more than the car itself. I’ve had to deal with hit-and-runs too, and it’s such a headache if you’re stuck with just liability. Out of curiosity, has anyone here actually saved money in the long run by sticking with liability on an older car, or did it bite you later? Just trying to weigh the “throwaway” logic against real-life stories.

Choosing Between Basic Liability and Full Coverage for Your First Car—What Did You Go With?

That “throwaway” logic comes up a lot, especially with older cars. I’ve seen folks save a decent chunk by dropping to liability once their car’s value dipped below a certain point, but it’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all thing. The real kicker is how much risk you’re comfortable carrying. Some people are fine rolling the dice, figuring if their car gets totaled, they’ll just move on. Others really want that safety net, even if it means paying more over time.

I’ve noticed that people sometimes underestimate the non-collision stuff that can happen—hail, theft, even random vandalism. Those aren’t covered by basic liability, and if you’re in an area where that’s common, it can get expensive fast. On the flip side, if you’ve got a car that’s barely worth more than the deductible, full coverage might not make much sense.

Curious if anyone here factored in things like rental reimbursement or roadside assistance when deciding? Those little add-ons can make a big difference during a stressful situation, but they’re easy to overlook when you’re just comparing liability vs. full coverage. I’ve seen some folks regret skipping them after a breakdown or accident left them stranded.

Has anyone had a situation where they thought they were saving money by going with liability, but then ended up facing unexpected costs? Or maybe someone who stuck with full coverage longer than they needed and felt like they were just throwing money away? Sometimes the peace of mind is worth it, but sometimes it really does add up to more than the car’s worth. Just wondering how others have balanced those trade-offs, especially with their first car.

I get what you mean about the “throwaway” logic, but I’m still not sure where the line is. My car’s not worth much, but I keep thinking about stuff like theft or hail, like you mentioned.

“if you’re in an area where that’s common, it can get expensive fast.”