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...

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

Man, I feel that. My ‘68 Dart’s been through three insurance setups in five years because I keep flip-flopping. Once paid for full coverage and then realized the payout wouldn’t even cover half the restoration cost if something happened. Now I just cross my fingers and keep a tarp handy when storms roll in. It’s a gamble either way, but sometimes the peace of mind isn’t worth the price tag - especially if you’re already handy with a wrench.

It’s a gamble either way, but sometimes the peace of mind isn’t worth the price tag - especially if you’re already handy with a wrench.

I hear you, but my luck’s so bad I could total my car backing out of the driveway. Full coverage feels like paying for a lottery ticket I hope never gets cashed in, but with my driving record, liability alone would be like playing Russian roulette with my wallet. At this point, I just budget for the deductible and pray my parallel parking doesn’t make headlines.

Been there. I remember when I got my first minivan (don’t judge, it was a steal), and I thought about going with just liability because the thing was already old enough to vote. But then my youngest decided to “help” me wash it with a rock, and I realized my luck wasn’t much better than yours. Full coverage suddenly felt like a safety blanket I didn’t want to give up, even if it meant eating more ramen for a while.

Honestly, I get the whole “peace of mind” argument, but sometimes that deductible feels like a cover charge just to use your own car. Still, after watching my neighbor’s kid back into my bumper last year - while I was sitting in it - I’m sticking with full coverage for now. Maybe one day I’ll trust my parallel parking skills (or the universe) enough to downgrade, but today is not that day.

“that deductible feels like a cover charge just to use your own car.”

That line cracked me up because it’s exactly how I felt the first time I had to cough up $500 just to get a dent fixed. Here’s how I’ve generally approached it: If the car’s worth less than what I’d pay for a year or two of full coverage, I start leaning toward liability only. But, and it’s a big but, every time I think I’m ready to make the switch, life throws me a curveball - like the time a tree branch decided my hood was the perfect landing spot during a windstorm.

I’m with you on the peace of mind thing, but I also get tired of paying for something I might never use. My compromise has been to raise my deductible as the car gets older, which drops the premium but still covers me if something major happens. Not perfect, but it keeps me from feeling like I’m just burning money every month.

Honestly, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Some years I regret not downgrading, others I’m glad I kept the coverage. It’s kind of like gambling, but with more paperwork.

I’ve definitely wrestled with this same decision, especially once our family started growing and we had to budget for more than just car stuff. When I bought my first car, I went with full coverage because it was still pretty new (to me, at least) and I was terrified of something happening that I couldn’t afford to fix. That deductible did sting, though - felt like paying twice just to get back to square one.

A few years later, when the car had more miles and a couple of dings, I started questioning if it was worth it. Like you mentioned, the peace of mind is nice, but after a while you start adding up all those premiums and wonder if you’re just throwing money away. I remember one winter when my neighbor’s kid accidentally backed into my parked car. The repair cost was almost exactly my deductible, so insurance barely helped. That’s when I realized sometimes you’re just paying for the “what ifs.”

Now that our current car is older, we’ve switched to liability only. It was a little nerve-wracking at first, but honestly, the savings have been worth it. We keep a small emergency fund set aside just in case something big happens. Not saying it’s the right move for everyone - if we had a newer or more expensive car, I’d probably stick with full coverage for longer.

It really does feel like a gamble sometimes. You hope you never need it, but life has a way of surprising you... usually at the worst possible moment. Still, I’d rather have some control over what I’m spending each month than feel like I’m stuck in an endless loop of premiums and deductibles.

Funny how much thought goes into something you hope you’ll never actually use.

Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. Insurance is one of those things that always feels like a lose-lose. You pay for years and hope you never need it, but if you do, it’s usually at the worst possible time, like you said. I remember with my first car, I went full coverage too - mainly because my parents wouldn’t stop bugging me about it. First time I actually had to use it, the deductible just about wiped out my checking account. Felt like I was getting robbed twice.

Honestly, switching to liability only once your car’s older is just common sense in my book. No point paying all that extra cash for something that’s barely worth more than the premium. I’ve done a bunch of long road trips in some pretty beat-up cars and, knock on wood, never needed anything more than liability. It’s a bit of a gamble, sure, but so is driving in general. I’d rather stash the savings for gas or repairs than hand it over to the insurance company every month.

That emergency fund idea is smart. I keep a little “car disaster” stash myself, just in case something goes sideways. At least then, if something happens, you’re not totally out of luck. I know some folks swear by full coverage no matter what, but honestly, after a certain point, it’s just not worth the headache or the cost.

Funny how much brain space this stuff takes up, when all you want to do is get from point A to B without your wallet taking a hit. But hey, sounds like you’ve got a good handle on it now. Sometimes you just gotta trust your gut and roll with it.

Honestly, I get the logic behind dropping to liability on an old beater, but I’m not sure it’s always that cut and dry. Couple thoughts from my end, just based on dealing with higher-end cars (and yeah, I know that’s a different ballgame):

- Full coverage isn’t just about the car’s value. If you’re at fault in a bad accident, even a minor one, repairs or replacement costs can be brutal - especially if you hit something expensive or someone sues. Liability covers the other person, not your ride.
- With pricier cars (or even just newer ones), parts and labor skyrocket fast. My last fender bender? The sensor alone cost more than my first used Honda. Full coverage saved me thousands, easily.
- Emergency funds are great until you get hit with a bill that wipes them out in one shot. Not everyone’s got the extra cash sitting around for a surprise $5k repair.
- If you finance or lease, full coverage isn’t really optional anyway. Lenders want their investment protected.

I get that for a $1k car, paying $800/year for full coverage is nuts. But sometimes people underestimate what it costs to fix even a “cheap” car after a crash - especially now with labor and parts shortages.

I’ve also heard of people getting stuck after an uninsured driver totals their car. Uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage can be a lifesaver, but not everyone thinks about it.

Not trying to play devil’s advocate just for the sake of it... I just think there’s more to the decision than the car’s age or value. Risk tolerance matters, but so does where you drive (some cities are just magnets for accidents).

I’d say, if you can swing it and your car’s worth anything significant - or if losing it would seriously mess up your life - it’s worth at least running the numbers before dropping coverage. Peace of mind is underrated sometimes.

I get that for a $1k car, paying $800/year for full coverage is nuts.

That’s exactly it. If your car’s barely worth more than the insurance premium, it just doesn’t add up. I’ve always dropped to liability once my cars hit that “beater” stage. If it gets totaled, I’ll just move on. Full coverage makes sense for newer or expensive cars, but for old rides? Not worth it in my book.

First car I ever bought was a ‘92 Caprice wagon for $900. Thing was a tank, but let’s be honest - nobody’s stealing it and if it got wrecked, the payout wouldn’t even cover a set of tires. I ran the numbers, and full coverage was almost as much as the car itself. Didn’t make sense.

Here’s how I look at it: If your ride is worth less than what you’re paying in premiums every year, just stick with liability. Save that cash for repairs or your next car. Only exception I’d make is if you can’t afford to replace the car at all - then maybe you want that safety net, but otherwise? Liability all day.

I get why some folks hang onto full coverage out of habit or fear, but for beaters? It’s just throwing money away. Rather put that toward gas or a decent set of wrenches.

Had a ‘97 Taurus wagon as my first “real” car - paid $700 and it came with a cassette stuck in the deck (Ace of Base, if you’re wondering). I remember looking at full coverage and thinking, am I insuring the car or just the rust? Ended up with liability only. Ever notice how insurance agents look at you funny when you ask about full coverage on a car worth less than your phone?

Liability only here too. Full coverage on a beater just never made sense to me - premiums would’ve cost more than the car in a year. Ever get hit and actually have to use your insurance? That’s when things get interesting...

Had to file a claim once after someone rear-ended me at a stoplight. Liability only, so my car was toast and I got nothing for it. Their insurance paid out, but if they’d been uninsured, I’d have been screwed. Ever think about adding uninsured motorist?

Their insurance paid out, but if they’d been uninsured, I’d have been screwed. Ever think about adding uninsured motorist?

That’s actually one of my biggest worries. I went with liability only for my first car because it was old and not worth much, but I keep thinking about what would happen if someone hit me and didn’t have insurance. Uninsured motorist coverage seems like a smart add-on, especially since you never really know who’s out there on the road. Is it usually expensive to add that, or does it depend a lot on where you live? I’m always nervous about paying for stuff I might not need, but stories like yours make me rethink it.

Honestly, I get where you’re coming from. I used to think uninsured motorist was just another way for the insurance company to squeeze a few more bucks out of me, but after hearing some horror stories, I decided to add it. For me, it wasn’t that much extra - maybe like $5-10 a month - but I know it can depend on your state and driving record. It’s tough balancing peace of mind with not overpaying, but sometimes that little bit of extra coverage helps me sleep better, especially with all the wild drivers out there.

I used to think the same thing about uninsured motorist coverage - like, is it really necessary? But after my friend got rear-ended by someone with no insurance, I changed my mind. For me, I went with liability plus uninsured motorist. My car’s older, so full coverage didn’t make sense financially. If your car’s newer or you’re still paying it off, though, full coverage might be worth the extra cost. It’s all about weighing the risk versus what you can afford to lose.