I get where you’re coming from—rental coverage always feels like one of those “maybe I’ll need it, maybe I won’t” things. I’ve skipped it for years, but once had to bum rides for a week when my car was in the shop. Not fun, but I survived. Here’s what I’m wondering: in Illinois, does your insurance ever cover a rental if you’re not at fault, or is that only if you add the extra coverage? Feels like there’s a lot of fine print in these policies...
Feels like there’s a lot of fine print in these policies...
Tell me about it—insurance paperwork is like reading stereo instructions from the ‘70s. Here’s what I’ve learned poking around Illinois rules:
- If you’re not at fault, the other driver’s insurance *should* pay for your rental (assuming they admit fault and have coverage).
- Your own policy only covers rentals if you added that “rental reimbursement” option—otherwise, you’re on your own.
- Sometimes, getting the other guy’s insurance to cough up for a rental takes forever. Been there, done that, drove my old truck with no AC for a week.
Honestly, I still skip the extra coverage most years... but every time my car’s in the shop, I question my life choices.
Yeah, the rental thing is a pain. I always debate adding that coverage, but then I look at the extra cost and think, “Eh, I’ll risk it.” Last time my car got rear-ended, I had to wait almost two weeks for the other guy’s insurance to approve a rental. Not fun. Has anyone actually had a claim where the rental reimbursement paid off, or is it usually just wasted money?
I get where you’re coming from, but I actually see rental reimbursement as one of those “better safe than sorry” things. I used to skip it too, thinking the odds were low that I’d need it. But then my car got sideswiped in a parking lot, and the other driver’s insurance dragged their feet for almost a month. I ended up paying out of pocket for a rental because I couldn’t be without a car for work. That stung way more than the $30 or whatever I would’ve paid for the coverage over six months.
It’s true, most of the time you won’t need it. But when you do, it’s usually at the worst possible moment. And if you rely on your car for work or family stuff, being stuck without wheels can get expensive fast. Even if the other person’s insurance is supposed to cover it, there’s no guarantee they’ll move quickly—or even accept liability right away. What if they dispute fault? Or what if you’re in a single-car accident and it’s your own insurance handling things?
I guess it comes down to how much risk you’re comfortable with. For me, I’d rather pay a little extra and not have to stress about scrambling for rides or shelling out hundreds for a rental. It’s not just about the money—it’s about peace of mind, too. Maybe it feels like wasted money most years, but all it takes is one bad week to make it worth it.
Curious if anyone else has had their claim denied or delayed even with rental coverage? That’s my only real worry—paying for something and then getting the runaround anyway...
Rental reimbursement always felt like a “nice to have” to me, but I’ll admit, I got burned once. My ‘68 Mustang got rear-ended and the shop took forever with parts. Even with coverage, my insurer capped the rental at $30/day, and you can’t rent much for that now. Ended up paying out of pocket anyway. I get the peace of mind angle, but sometimes the fine print makes it less useful than you’d hope. Still, if you’re driving something newer or need a car daily, it’s probably worth it. Just double-check those limits... they sneak up on you.
