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

I totally get the anxiety about storms or tight parking - I've had those moments too, especially since my car's not exactly new. Honestly, I ran the numbers a bunch of times and liability just made more sense for me, like you said. Sometimes I wonder if I'd regret it if something happened, but then again, the cost difference is huge. Unless your area has a ton of accidents or thefts, it feels like a reasonable risk. It's easy to second-guess, but your logic checks out.

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. Liability makes a lot of sense if your car isn’t worth a ton or you’re not worried about every little ding. I see people overpaying for full coverage on cars that honestly wouldn’t get much back if they were totaled. That said, I’ve seen folks regret it after a hailstorm or random fender bender, but those situations are pretty rare unless you live somewhere with wild weather or crazy traffic. It’s always a bit of a gamble, but your logic seems solid to me.

I hear you, but I’ll be honest - after my minivan got sideswiped in a grocery store parking lot (and the other driver just took off), I was glad I had full coverage. The payout wasn’t huge, but it covered enough to keep the car looking decent. Still, if your car’s barely worth a couple grand, I get why you’d skip it. Has anyone actually had to use their full coverage for something random like that, or do most people just end up paying for peace of mind?

Has anyone actually had to use their full coverage for something random like that, or do most people just end up paying for peace of mind?

I’ve been on both sides. My first car was a beater, so I just rolled with liability - figured if it got wrecked, I’d just move on. But when I upgraded to something a bit nicer, I caved and got full coverage. Ironically, the only time I ever used it was when a tree branch fell on my hood during a camping trip. Didn’t get much back after the deductible, but it did save me from driving around with a crumpled hood for months. Still not sure if it’s always worth it, but sometimes weird stuff just happens...

Full coverage has definitely bailed me out a couple times, but honestly, I still go back and forth on whether it’s always worth it - especially for older cars. My first “real” car was a ‘94 Mustang I’d spent way too much time fixing up, and I just couldn’t bring myself to risk it with liability only. A few years in, some kid clipped my rear quarter panel in a parking lot and took off. Insurance covered the repair after my deductible, but the shop didn’t exactly restore it to show quality or anything. Still, not having to eat the whole cost was a relief.

On the flip side, I’ve got an old ‘72 Chevy pickup now that’s basically a project on wheels. For that one, I stick with liability because if something happens, I’m probably wrenching on it anyway. Plus, full coverage premiums were creeping up to almost what I paid for the truck in the first place... just didn’t make sense.

I guess it comes down to how much you’d miss your ride if something random happened. If you’re attached - or if replacing it would be a pain - full coverage can be worth it for the peace of mind alone. But yeah, sometimes you end up paying for years without ever making a claim. The randomness of life (and falling tree branches) is what gets me. You never think you’ll need it until you do.

Funny thing is, even with all that experience, I still second-guess myself every time renewal season rolls around...