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

It’s not always about the car’s value, honestly... sometimes it’s just about not having to stress every time there’s a thunderstorm.

I get that, but I’m still a little on the fence. Here’s how I looked at it: First, I checked what my car was actually worth - like, would insurance even pay out enough to make full coverage worth it if something happened? For my old Civic, the numbers didn’t really add up. Second, I thought about where I park and drive. If you’re street parking under trees or in a hail-prone area, yeah, that’s a different story.

But honestly, I’ve had years where nothing happened and felt like I was just burning money on extra coverage. Then again, my buddy got sideswiped in a parking lot and the other driver bailed - he was glad he had more than just liability.

I guess my take is: weigh the odds, check your risk tolerance, and don’t just go by what everyone else does. Sometimes peace of mind is worth it... sometimes it’s just expensive peace of mind.

Honestly, you nailed it with the risk tolerance bit. A lot of people just default to whatever’s cheapest, but then get caught off guard when something random happens - like your friend in the parking lot. I usually tell folks to do a quick value check: if you’d be seriously hurting to replace your car out of pocket, full coverage might make sense, even if it feels pricey. But if it’s an old beater and you could walk away from it, liability’s probably fine. It’s not always black and white... sometimes it’s just about what helps you sleep at night.

if you’d be seriously hurting to replace your car out of pocket, full coverage might make sense, even if it feels pricey.

That’s pretty much how I look at it too. I went with full coverage for my first car, even though it was a bit older, just because I knew I couldn’t afford a big repair or replacement if something happened. It’s not just about the car’s value either - sometimes the peace of mind is worth the extra cost. I get why some folks stick with liability, but for me, the “what ifs” were too much to ignore.

It’s not just about the car’s value either - sometimes the peace of mind is worth the extra cost.

Totally get that. I leaned toward full coverage too, even though my car wasn’t worth a ton. It just felt safer, especially since I do a lot of long drives and don’t want to stress every time I park somewhere new. For me, that “peace of mind” you mentioned really did tip the scales, even if the premiums sting a bit. I’d rather pay a little more up front than risk getting stuck with a huge bill later.

I hear you on the peace of mind factor. When you said,

I’d rather pay a little more up front than risk getting stuck with a huge bill later.

- that’s actually what I see a lot in claims. People rarely expect “the big one” until it happens, and then the out-of-pocket costs can be brutal. Full coverage isn’t always necessary for every car, but if you’re driving long distances or parking in unfamiliar spots, the extra protection really can make a difference. Sometimes the premium feels like a pain, but it’s nothing compared to a total loss with no coverage.