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

Honestly, I can relate to that thinking. My first car was a ‘99 Corolla with a questionable transmission, and I remember looking at the full coverage premiums and just laughing. The car blue-booked for less than a grand, but full coverage would’ve run me almost $900 a year. It felt pretty pointless - like paying rent on something you already own.

That said, I do see people go for full coverage even on old cars if they’re super risk-averse, or maybe if they just saved up forever to get their ride and can’t stomach losing it all in one accident. For me, liability made more sense - especially since I knew if something happened, I could walk away without being too heartbroken. But yeah, it’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all. Sometimes peace of mind is worth paying for... but sometimes it’s just throwing money down the drain, depending on the car and your situation.

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. Full coverage on a car barely worth more than the deductible just doesn’t add up for me either. I remember running the numbers on my first car - a ‘02 Civic with more rust than paint - and thinking, “If it gets totaled, I’ll just be sad for a bit and then move on.” Not worth paying almost the same as the car’s value every year.

On the other hand, I’ve got a friend who swears by full coverage, even on his old beater. He says he just sleeps better knowing he’s covered no matter what. I kinda get that, but for me, I’d rather stash the extra cash in a “future car” fund. I guess it depends on how much you trust your luck (or your parking skills). For now, liability works fine. If I ever get something newer or pricier, maybe I’ll rethink it... but for now, I’ll risk it.

I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve actually gone the other way a couple times - maybe out of paranoia, maybe just because of some bad luck early on. My first car was a ‘99 Corolla that looked like it had survived a demolition derby, but I still kept full coverage for the first year. It wasn’t really about the car’s value, honestly. It was more about not having to stress if something random happened, like getting sideswiped in a parking lot or some uninsured driver running a stop sign. That peace of mind was worth the extra cash for me at the time.

I had a buddy who dropped his coverage down to liability on his old Saturn, and then - wouldn’t you know it - someone rear-ended him and took off. He was stuck with a busted trunk and no payout. After seeing that, I figured I’d rather overpay for a bit than get caught out like that. Maybe it’s just my luck, but I’ve always felt like the universe waits until you drop coverage to throw something at you.

That said, once my cars got really old or I had enough saved up to replace them without too much pain, I did switch to liability only. There’s definitely a point where it just doesn’t make sense to keep paying more in premiums than the car’s worth. But for those first couple years - especially when I was still figuring out how often I’d be parallel parking into questionable spots - I liked having that safety net.

Guess it comes down to how much risk you’re willing to eat and how much you trust your fellow drivers (or your own luck). For me, paying a little extra early on felt like cheap insurance against Murphy’s Law... but yeah, once you’re driving something held together by duct tape and hope, liability’s probably all you need.

I totally get the peace of mind angle - honestly, I’m the same way, just maybe a bit more extreme. My first “real” car was a used BMW, and I went all-in on full coverage, even though it was already a few years old. Here’s how I look at it: first, figure out if you could actually afford to fix or replace your car out of pocket if something wild happens. If not, full coverage is worth it, at least for the first couple years. Once the car’s value drops and you’ve got a cushion saved up, then yeah, liability makes sense. But man, those random parking lot dings or hit-and-runs are real... I’d rather pay a bit more than get stuck with a huge bill.

I get where you’re coming from, but honestly, I just went with liability on my first car. It was a 10-year-old Civic, nothing fancy, and I couldn’t justify the extra cost for full coverage. If it got totaled, yeah, it’d suck, but the premiums would’ve added up to more than the car’s worth after a couple years anyway. Guess it depends how much risk you can stomach... I just figured I’d rather save the cash upfront.

I get where you’re coming from, but honestly, I just went with liability on my first car.

I get the logic, but for me, even with an old car, I always lean toward full coverage. Had a buddy’s “beater” get sideswiped in a parking lot - no one left a note, and he was out of luck. The peace of mind’s worth the extra bucks to me, even if the car’s not fancy.

- Totally get where you’re coming from.
- Even with older cars, I usually go for full coverage too - especially if I’ve put any work into them.
- Had a ‘92 Caprice that got rear-ended at a stoplight. Other driver took off, and liability wouldn’t have helped me at all.
- For me, it’s not just about the car’s value, but the hassle and cost if something random happens.
- That said, if the car’s truly a throwaway, sometimes liability makes sense... but I’d rather not roll the dice.

For me, it’s not just about the car’s value, but the hassle and cost if something random happens.

Totally agree - sometimes the peace of mind is worth more than the car itself. I’ve had to deal with hit-and-runs too, and it’s such a headache if you’re stuck with just liability. Out of curiosity, has anyone here actually saved money in the long run by sticking with liability on an older car, or did it bite you later? Just trying to weigh the “throwaway” logic against real-life stories.

Choosing Between Basic Liability and Full Coverage for Your First Car - What Did You Go With?

That “throwaway” logic comes up a lot, especially with older cars. I’ve seen folks save a decent chunk by dropping to liability once their car’s value dipped below a certain point, but it’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all thing. The real kicker is how much risk you’re comfortable carrying. Some people are fine rolling the dice, figuring if their car gets totaled, they’ll just move on. Others really want that safety net, even if it means paying more over time.

I’ve noticed that people sometimes underestimate the non-collision stuff that can happen - hail, theft, even random vandalism. Those aren’t covered by basic liability, and if you’re in an area where that’s common, it can get expensive fast. On the flip side, if you’ve got a car that’s barely worth more than the deductible, full coverage might not make much sense.

Curious if anyone here factored in things like rental reimbursement or roadside assistance when deciding? Those little add-ons can make a big difference during a stressful situation, but they’re easy to overlook when you’re just comparing liability vs. full coverage. I’ve seen some folks regret skipping them after a breakdown or accident left them stranded.

Has anyone had a situation where they thought they were saving money by going with liability, but then ended up facing unexpected costs? Or maybe someone who stuck with full coverage longer than they needed and felt like they were just throwing money away? Sometimes the peace of mind is worth it, but sometimes it really does add up to more than the car’s worth. Just wondering how others have balanced those trade-offs, especially with their first car.

I get what you mean about the “throwaway” logic, but I’m still not sure where the line is. My car’s not worth much, but I keep thinking about stuff like theft or hail, like you mentioned.

“if you’re in an area where that’s common, it can get expensive fast.”

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

How do you actually figure out if it’s worth paying for that extra coverage? Is it just a gut feeling, or do people actually crunch the numbers?

Honestly, I’m in the same boat trying to figure this out. I keep hearing people say “just do the math,” but it’s not always that simple. Like, yeah, you can look up how much your car is worth and compare it to what you’d pay for comp/collision each year, but there’s always stuff you can’t predict. My car’s maybe worth $3k on a good day, so part of me thinks, why bother? But then I start thinking about random stuff like hail storms or someone sideswiping me in a parking lot and taking off.

I get the logic behind “if you’re in an area where that’s common, it can get expensive fast,” but how do you even know what’s ‘common’? I’ve lived here a couple years and haven’t seen any crazy weather or crime, but who knows if that’ll change next month. Feels like a gamble either way.

I guess what bugs me is that insurance companies always seem to win no matter what. If nothing happens, I’m out a bunch of money for nothing. If something does happen, there’s still deductibles and they never pay out as much as you hope. Maybe that’s just my skeptical side talking.

I’m leaning toward just sticking with liability for now and setting aside some cash in case something happens. At least then I’m not paying extra every month for “what ifs.” But yeah, sometimes I wonder if I’ll regret it if my luck runs out...

I guess what bugs me is that insurance companies always seem to win no matter what. If nothing happens, I’m out a bunch of money for nothing. If something does happen, there’s still deductibles and they never pay out as much as you hope.

Man, I feel this so much. It’s like playing the world’s least fun slot machine - except the jackpot is just getting your own money back (minus a chunk). I’ve had everything from a $1,000 beater to a car that was barely worth more than its tires, and honestly, I usually just stuck with liability once the value dropped below “would actually cry if it got totaled.”

But you’re right, it’s not just about math. Who can predict when a tree branch decides to go full WWE on your hood? Or when some mystery van leaves you with a new “custom” dent in the grocery store lot? I always ask myself: would I be okay walking away if my car got wrecked tomorrow? If the answer’s yes (or at least “meh”), liability it is.

Still, every time I see hail in the forecast, I start questioning all my life choices...

I get where you’re coming from, but I guess I’m just too paranoid to go liability-only. Had a buddy who got rear-ended and the other driver bailed - his car was toast and he was stuck with nothing. Ever since, I’ve paid for full coverage even though it stings every month. It’s not fun watching that money disappear, but my luck’s never been great, so I’d rather have the safety net. Maybe overkill, but peace of mind counts for something... right?

peace of mind counts for something... right?

Definitely feel that. Full coverage has saved me more than once. Years back, I had a deer jump out in front of me on a back road - total fluke, but it wrecked my front end. Insurance covered way more than I’d ever paid in premiums. I get the sting of monthly payments, but honestly, after that, I can’t imagine going back to liability-only. Maybe it’s just my luck, but I’d rather not gamble with my car.

Yeah, I totally get where you’re coming from. I used to think liability was enough, but after seeing a buddy get rear-ended and then stuck with a huge repair bill, I switched to full coverage. It’s not cheap, but honestly, the stress it saves is worth it for me. I’d rather pay a bit more each month than risk a massive hit if something random happens. Guess it depends on how much you rely on your car, too... I need mine for work, so I can’t really afford to roll the dice.

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.