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

Went with liability only for my first car - a ‘99 Civic that already had a few dents. Didn’t make sense to shell out for full coverage when the car was barely worth a grand. Used the money I saved to fix minor stuff myself. Peace of mind’s great, but not if it’s costing more than the car’s worth, you know?

Makes sense for an old Civic. I did the same with my kid’s first car - a beat-up Focus. No point paying more for insurance than the car’s worth. If it gets totaled, you’re not out much. Just keep up with the basics and save the rest.

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

No point paying more for insurance than the car’s worth. If it gets totaled, you’re not out much. Just keep up with the basics and save the rest.

That’s exactly it. Why throw money at full coverage when the payout wouldn’t even cover a decent used bike? I’ve never understood folks who keep full coverage on a car that’s barely worth a couple grand. Once it drops below a certain value, it’s just not logical. You’re basically paying for peace of mind that doesn’t make financial sense.

I did the same with my first car - a ‘99 Corolla that was already on its last legs. Liability only, and I pocketed the difference. Sure, there’s always that “what if” in the back of your mind, but honestly, if someone totals your old Civic or Focus, what are you really losing? A few hundred bucks, maybe? That’s less than a year of full coverage premiums in some places.

The only thing I’d add is to make sure you’re not skimping on maintenance just because you’re saving on insurance. Oil changes, brakes, tires - those are non-negotiable if you want to keep it running and avoid bigger headaches down the road. But yeah, I’m with you. Insurance companies aren’t charities, and they’re not doing you any favors by charging more than the car’s worth.

Ever notice how they try to upsell you on all those extras, too? Roadside, rental, glass coverage... It adds up fast. Unless you’re driving something new or you can’t afford to be without a car for even a day, I don’t see the point.

Anyway, smart move. Keep it simple and don’t overthink it. If the car’s not worth much, neither is the insurance.

I get where you’re coming from, but there’s another angle. If you’re in a spot where losing your car - even a cheap one - would leave you stuck, full coverage can be a safety net. Happened to my buddy with his old Saturn. Someone hit him, insurance paid out enough for a down payment on another beater. It might not make strict financial sense, but sometimes peace of mind is worth something, especially if you can’t just replace the car right away. Just depends how much risk you’re willing to take on, I guess.

Totally get that, and honestly, I lean toward full coverage for the same reason. If my minivan got totaled, I’d be scrambling - kids, groceries, work... it’d be a mess. Even though it’s not worth much, I’d rather pay a bit more each month than risk being stuck with nothing. Maybe it’s just my luck, but the one time I dropped to liability, someone sideswiped me in a parking lot and took off. Never again. Sometimes you pay for peace of mind, you know?

Honestly, I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve always gone the opposite route. Once my cars hit a certain age or value, I just can’t justify full coverage anymore. Had an old Civic that barely made it up hills - if it got totaled, insurance wasn’t gonna give me much anyway. I figured I’d rather save the extra cash each month and just roll the dice. Yeah, there’s risk, but over the years, I’ve probably saved enough to buy another beater outright.

Not saying it’s for everyone - if you rely on your car for hauling kids and groceries every day, maybe peace of mind is worth it. But for me, after paying for full coverage on a car worth less than my phone, it just felt like throwing money away. Guess it depends how much you trust your luck... or how much you hate dealing with insurance companies.

after paying for full coverage on a car worth less than my phone, it just felt like throwing money away.

Man, I totally get this. My first car was a ‘97 Camry with more duct tape than paint, and I remember looking at my insurance bill thinking, “Am I insuring the car or the rust?” I went with liability only pretty quick - figured if someone rear-ended me, the insurance company would probably just send me a sympathy card and $50 for a bus pass.

But, I’ll admit, there’s something about driving cross-country in a questionable vehicle that makes you reconsider your life choices. I once limped into Albuquerque with the check engine light on and a prayer, and for a second I wished I had full coverage... just in case the car decided to retire on the spot. Still, for old beaters, I’d rather save up for the next adventure than pay out for coverage I’ll never use. If it’s a newer ride or something you can’t live without? Yeah, maybe peace of mind is worth a few extra bucks. Otherwise, roll those dice and keep roadside assistance on speed dial.

figured if someone rear-ended me, the insurance company would probably just send me a sympathy card and $50 for a bus pass.

- Been there. My “full coverage” was basically just a monthly reminder I drive like a target.
- Liability only for me, too. Not paying more than the car’s worth.
- That said, with my luck, the one time I skipped full coverage was the time a tree tried to hug my fender. Figures...
- Agree - if your car’s barely holding together, save your cash for actual repairs or snacks for those long roadside waits.

Honestly, I get the temptation to just stick with liability - especially if your car’s worth less than your deductible. But I’ve seen people gamble and lose big when something random happens, like a hailstorm or a deer with a death wish. Full coverage can feel like paying for peace of mind you might never use, but when you need it, you’re glad you have it. Still, if your ride’s barely worth the gas in the tank, I can’t blame anyone for rolling the dice.

I get where you’re coming from, but I actually went with liability for my first car, even after weighing the risks. The premiums for full coverage were almost half the value of my old sedan every year, and honestly, I figured I could handle the loss if something happened. Statistically, the odds of a total loss are pretty low, especially if you’re not driving a ton. Maybe not the safest bet, but for me, it was a calculated risk that made sense at the time.

The premiums for full coverage were almost half the value of my old sedan every year, and honestly, I figured I could handle the loss if something happened.

Makes sense for an older daily driver. I went liability-only on my first car too - a ‘91 Accord that wasn’t worth much to begin with. Full coverage just didn’t add up financially. That said, I usually recommend at least considering comprehensive if you’re worried about stuff like theft or hail, especially if your area’s prone to it. For rare or classic cars, though, full coverage is a no-brainer - replacement parts can get pricey fast. For most beaters? Liability does the job.

I remember when I bought my first “nice” car - a used 5-series BMW. The insurance agent nearly choked when I asked about liability-only. Turns out, even minor repairs on those cost a fortune, so full coverage was basically mandatory. Totally different ballgame from my old Civic, where I just rolled the dice and hoped for the best. For anything with a badge or rare parts, I’d never risk it. For a beater, though? I get why people skip it.

Honestly, I get where you're coming from - those German cars can be a real money pit if anything goes sideways. I learned the hard way with an old Audi A4 I picked up in my twenties. Looked great, drove even better... until a parking lot fender bender meant a $1,700 headlight replacement. Full coverage saved me there, no question.

But yeah, with my first car (beat-up Corolla), I ran liability-only for years. It just didn’t make sense to pay more in premiums than the car was even worth. If it got totaled, I'd just move on. It’s a different calculation once you’ve got something with expensive parts or sentimental value.

You nailed it - depends on the car and your risk tolerance. Some folks are comfortable rolling the dice, others want peace of mind. Nothing wrong with either approach, just gotta know what you’re getting into.

Honestly, I went liability-only on my first car too - a ‘98 Civic that was worth about as much as a nice dinner out. No way was I paying extra for full coverage when a fender bender would’ve just meant moving on. Now that I’ve got a minivan with all the bells and whistles (and kids who treat it like a jungle gym), I don’t mess around - full coverage all the way. If you’re driving something you can’t afford to replace, or if repairs cost more than your monthly mortgage, just bite the bullet and get the coverage. Otherwise, save your cash for coffee or diapers... trust me, you’ll need it.

I hear you on the Civic - my first car was a ‘99 Corolla with mysterious stains and a radio that only played static. Liability was the only thing that made sense. Now, with a newer ride and a backseat full of cracker crumbs, I’m not taking chances. Funny how priorities shift once you’re hauling more than just yourself around.

Totally get that shift - once I had kids in the back, full coverage just felt like a no-brainer. Out of curiosity, did you notice your premiums jump a lot when you switched to comprehensive? I found mine went up more than I expected, but maybe that's just my area.

I’ve noticed the same thing with premiums - when I upgraded to full coverage after my first kid was born, the increase was a lot steeper than I’d anticipated. I did some digging at the time and it turns out rates can swing pretty wildly depending on where you live, even down to your ZIP code. Urban areas seem to get hit harder, probably because of higher accident and theft rates. Where I’m at (mid-sized city, not exactly high-crime), my premium jumped by about 40% when I went from liability to comprehensive and collision. It stung a bit, but honestly, the peace of mind outweighed the extra cost.

I tend to be cautious by nature, especially when it comes to road trips with the family. Knowing that we’re covered for just about anything - hail damage, deer on the highway, even a stray shopping cart in a parking lot - helps me sleep better at night. That said, if your car isn’t worth much or you’ve got a really tight budget, basic liability can make sense for some folks. But for me, the risk just didn’t feel worth it anymore once kids were in the mix.

One thing that helped soften the blow: shopping around every couple of years. Different insurers weigh things differently, so sometimes switching shaved off a surprising amount - definitely more than any loyalty discounts ever did for me. Also, raising my deductible a bit helped keep premiums manageable without giving up coverage I wanted.

Curious if anyone’s found ways to bring down those full coverage costs lately? The market seems all over the place these days...

One thing that helped soften the blow: shopping around every couple of years. Different insurers weigh things differently, so sometimes switching shaved off a surprising amount - definitely more than any loyalty discounts ever did for me.

That’s been my experience too, but honestly, as someone with a couple of speeding tickets and a fender bender on my record, “shopping around” sometimes just means finding out who’s going to gouge me the least. I tried raising my deductible once, but the savings weren’t huge - maybe $15 a month? Not nothing, but it didn’t feel like a game-changer.

I get the peace of mind argument, especially with kids in the car. For me, though, the jump to full coverage felt brutal. I live in a city where rates are already high, and after my last claim, my premium nearly doubled. I’ve heard some folks have luck with usage-based insurance (those apps that track your driving), but I’m not sure I trust them not to ding me for every hard brake.

Honestly, I’m just hoping my record clears up soon and things settle down. Until then, I’m stuck paying more than I’d like... but at least I know what I’m covered for if something else goes sideways.

- Totally get what you mean about “shopping around” just finding the least-bad option.
-

I tried raising my deductible once, but the savings weren’t huge - maybe $15 a month?

I totally relate to the struggle of picking between liability and full coverage, especially when you’re dealing with an older car you actually like. I’ve been there - ran the numbers, tried tweaking deductibles, but like you said,

the savings weren’t huge - maybe $15 a month?

Usage-based insurance gives me pause too. Not a fan of having my driving tracked or analyzed - too much pressure. Honestly, I end up re-evaluating every renewal too. Does anyone else find themselves second-guessing after a year with no claims? I always wonder if I’m overpaying for “peace of mind,” but then again... better safe than sorry, right?