Honestly, I’m in the same boat with my first car—barely worth more than a couple months of insurance. I get why you’d skip the extra coverage. My dad keeps telling me to “just get liability and call it a day” since if a tree flattens my Civic, I’d probably just walk away and not bother fixing it. Makes sense to me, especially if you’re not super attached. Sometimes you just gotta weigh the odds and hope for no squirrel attacks...
I get where you’re coming from. When you wrote,
, I had to laugh a little—my old Corolla is in the same category. It’s worth maybe $1,500 on a good day, so paying for comprehensive or collision just doesn’t add up mathematically. I ran the numbers and realized I’d be spending almost half the car’s value every year just to protect against pretty unlikely scenarios.“if a tree flattens my Civic, I’d probably just walk away and not bother fixing it”
That said, I do sometimes worry about those “act of God” situations like hail or falling branches. Statistically, though, they’re rare enough that liability-only makes more sense for me too. My thinking is: if something catastrophic happens, it’s not like I’m losing a huge investment. I’d rather save the money and put it towards a future upgrade or repairs that actually make sense.
I guess the only thing that gives me pause is if you live somewhere with frequent hailstorms or crazy weather—then maybe comprehensive could be worth it? But in most cases, especially if you’re not emotionally attached to the car, liability seems like the logical route.
It’s kind of weird how much insurance comes down to personal risk tolerance and just doing the math for your own situation. For now, I’m sticking with liability and hoping my luck holds out... and that no rogue squirrels decide to target my windshield.
- Been there with the insurance math. My last car was a used BMW, and even though it’s “luxury,” its value dropped fast.
- I did keep comprehensive, but only because parts are stupid expensive if something random happens.
- Honestly, if it was worth less, I’d probably do liability too.
- Only exception: my neighbor’s Benz got trashed by hail last year—repairs were more than the car was worth. He had coverage, so he lucked out, but that’s rare unless you’re in a hail-prone area.
- For most cars under $5k? Liability makes sense unless you’re super risk-averse or live somewhere with wild weather.
Honestly, insurance is like playing chess with your wallet—never sure if you’re protecting your king or just losing pawns. I’m still driving my first car (a ‘09 Corolla, so basically indestructible), and I went liability-only after the value dipped below $4k. But man, every time there’s a storm warning, I eye the sky like it’s out to get me. If I lived somewhere hail was a regular guest star, I’d probably cough up for comprehensive too. Otherwise, that extra cash goes to gas and snacks... priorities, right?
I get where you’re coming from—liability-only is tempting once your car’s value drops, especially for something like a Corolla that’s not exactly a thief magnet or a sports car. I’m actually shopping around for my first policy right now, and honestly, the whole “what if” game is kind of exhausting. Hail damage is one of those things that feels remote until it happens in your zip code.
From what I’ve read, comprehensive isn’t that expensive for older cars, but the payout isn’t huge either if your ride gets totaled. I’ve been running the numbers—if the premium plus deductible comes close to what you’d get for the car, it almost feels like you’re just betting against yourself. But yeah, if I lived somewhere with wild weather, I’d probably just eat the cost for peace of mind. Otherwise, snacks win every time... until the sky decides to drop baseballs.