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

I’ve been going back and forth on this exact thing for weeks. I keep running the numbers, and liability is so much cheaper, but then I start thinking about all the “what ifs.” My cousin had a similar situation - she only had liability, got sideswiped in a parking lot, and the other driver just took off. She was stuck paying for everything herself. That kind of freaked me out.

On the other hand, my car isn’t super new or anything, so part of me wonders if full coverage is overkill. But then again, if something happened and I couldn’t get to work, that’d be a way bigger problem than just the repair bill. I guess it comes down to how much risk you’re willing to take on. For now, I’m leaning toward full coverage, at least for the first year or two... just for peace of mind while I figure things out.

Honestly, I get why you’re leaning full coverage - peace of mind is no joke. But I went the opposite way with my first car, which was basically a rolling tin can with wheels. Liability only. The way I saw it, if someone totaled it, the insurance payout wouldn’t be much more than what I’d save skipping full coverage for a couple years. Sure, there’s risk, but sometimes you’ve gotta weigh the odds versus the wallet. If your car isn’t worth much, maybe liability isn’t as scary as it seems... unless you’re really unlucky, in which case, well - welcome to my luck on road trips.

if someone totaled it, the insurance payout wouldn’t be much more than what I’d save skipping full coverage for a couple years.

That’s pretty much how I looked at it too. My first car was worth less than my phone, so paying extra for full coverage just didn’t add up. I figured if I wrecked it, I’d just be out a few hundred bucks - annoying, but not life-ruining. Full coverage makes sense if you’ve got something worth protecting, but for a beater? Liability all the way. Just gotta cross your fingers and hope your luck holds out... mine usually doesn’t, but hey, that’s what public transit is for.

Full coverage makes sense if you’ve got something worth protecting, but for a beater? Liability all the way.

Totally get that logic. My first car was a $900 wonder that barely survived a cross-country trip. I went with liability too - figured if it died, I’d just have a good story and maybe a bus ticket home. Full coverage just felt like overkill for something held together by duct tape and hope.

Honestly, for a $900 car, liability is all you need. Full coverage would probably cost more than the car’s worth in a year or two. I get where you’re coming from with,

Full coverage just felt like overkill for something held together by duct tape and hope.

Only exception I’d mention - if you can’t afford to replace the car at all, sometimes people want a little extra peace of mind. But for most beaters, it’s just not worth it. Save your money for the next ride.