“Some companies make it a real pain, but I’ve seen a few that are more flexible if you keep receipts and photos.”
Yeah, that’s the trick—document everything like you’re prepping for a tax audit. I’ve had folks hand me literal binders of receipts and photos, which honestly makes my job easier. But even then, sometimes it feels like we’re all just rolling dice with what gets approved. Full coverage is one of those phrases that means everything and nothing at the same time… kind of like “unlimited breadsticks.”
Full coverage is one of those phrases that means everything and nothing at the same time… kind of like “unlimited breadsticks.”
Couldn’t agree more. “Full coverage” is basically a marketing term—what matters is what’s actually listed on your policy. Hail damage? That’s usually under comprehensive, but people think liability or collision will cover it. Seen too many folks find out the hard way. If you’re in hail country, double-check your policy. Don’t just take the agent’s word for it, either—read the fine print yourself.
That’s a solid reminder. I used to think “full coverage” meant I was set for anything—turns out, not so much. It really is all about the details. Policies can be a maze, but it pays to be thorough.
Title: Full Coverage Isn’t Always What It Sounds Like
I get what you’re saying about reading the fine print, but honestly, isn’t it kinda wild that “full coverage” doesn’t actually mean you’re fully covered? I’m just starting to look into car insurance, and the whole thing feels like a trap. Like, if you have to check every single detail to know what’s covered, what’s even the point of calling it “full” anything? I always figured it was just liability plus whatever else could happen, but apparently not hail, not floods, sometimes not even theft unless you add more stuff on.
Feels like there should be a better way to make this clearer. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather pay a bit more and KNOW what’s included instead of having to play detective every time. The whole “maze” thing is real... but should it be?
Yeah, it’s super misleading. “Full coverage” is just a combo of liability, collision, and comprehensive, but even then, there are gaps. For hail or flood, you need comprehensive, and sometimes that still has weird exclusions. I’ve had to double-check my own policy after hearing stories like that. It’s wild how much you have to dig just to know what you’re actually paying for.
