Notifications
Clear all

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

167 Posts
162 Users
0 Reactions
3,643 Views
Posts: 2
(@singer51)
New Member
Joined:

Yeah, I’ve noticed a lot of folks assume UMPD is this magic fix, but like you said, it’s really limited.

“Sometimes, just bumping up your emergency fund and sticking with liability makes more sense if you’re driving an older car.”
That’s been my approach with my ‘92 Mustang—liability only, and I just keep a little cash set aside for the unexpected. Ever notice how the more “middle ground” options you add, the less value you seem to get? Insurance is such a weird balancing act.


Reply
artist491785
Posts: 10
(@artist491785)
Active Member
Joined:

Honestly, insurance feels a bit like ordering at a diner—too many choices, and half of them don’t really fill you up. I stuck with liability on my first car, too. It was a ‘98 Corolla that barely survived my college years. Paying extra for collision or UMPD just didn’t make sense when the car’s value was basically “sentimental.” I’d rather have the cash for surprise repairs or, let’s be real, coffee after a long commute. Full coverage only started making sense for me once I got something newer (and actually cared if it got dinged in the parking lot).


Reply
pumpkinh91
Posts: 16
(@pumpkinh91)
Active Member
Joined:

Totally get where you’re coming from. Liability on an old beater makes a lot of sense—no point paying more than the car’s worth, right? I see a lot of folks switch to full coverage once they’ve got a car they actually want to protect. It’s like, suddenly every scratch feels personal. But yeah, for a ‘98 Corolla, coffee money probably goes further than collision coverage ever would.


Reply
editor73
Posts: 18
(@editor73)
Active Member
Joined:

I hear you on the old beater thing. I started out with liability only on my first car—a ‘99 Civic that was already half duct tape. My rates were sky-high thanks to a couple tickets, so full coverage just wasn’t realistic. Honestly, even if I’d wanted to “protect” it, the premiums would’ve been more than the car was worth. Once I upgraded to something newer, I did go for full coverage, but I still cringe every renewal. Sometimes it really does feel like you’re just paying for peace of mind, not actual value.


Reply
elizabethsinger1190
Posts: 2
(@elizabethsinger1190)
New Member
Joined:

Yeah, the peace of mind part is really what you’re buying with full coverage, especially on anything newer or financed. On an old car, liability makes sense—if the payout after a wreck wouldn’t even cover a decent used bike, why pay more? I’ve seen plenty of folks regret over-insuring beaters. Once you’re driving something with real value, though, that extra coverage can save your wallet if the worst happens. It’s always a bit of a gamble either way.


Reply
Page 25 / 34
Share:
Scroll to Top