Yeah, I’ve always thought “comprehensive” was a weird name for what it actually covers. Like you said, it’s not the catch-all people assume.
That’s the trap—insurance lingo is designed to confuse. I’m all for saving money, but skipping comprehensive if you park outside is just rolling the dice. I’d rather pay a bit more than get stuck with a totaled car and zero payout. The fine print is where they get you every time.“He thought ‘full coverage’ meant everything. Spoiler: It didn’t.”
That’s the trap—insurance lingo is designed to confuse.
Honestly, I’ve read through my policy a few times and still find parts of it confusing. “Comprehensive” sounds like it should cover everything, but then you realize it’s just for stuff like hail, theft, or vandalism—not collisions. I get wanting to save money, but if your car’s outside most of the time, skipping it feels risky. I had a neighbor lose his windshield to a falling branch and he was out of luck because he thought “full coverage” meant exactly that. The wording really does trip people up.
Yeah, the whole “full coverage” thing is super misleading. I’ve had to explain to friends that it doesn’t mean what they think. Ever had to file a claim for something weird, like a tree branch or hail? Curious how that process went for you.
Yeah, the whole “full coverage” thing is super misleading. I’ve had to explain to friends that it doesn’t mean what they think.
That’s spot on—“full coverage” really just means whatever your policy says, not literally everything. I actually had a claim a few years back when a neighbor’s tree branch fell on my car during a storm. The process was smoother than I expected, but only because I had comprehensive coverage. Without that, I’d have been out of luck. It’s frustrating how easy it is to assume you’re protected from stuff like hail or falling branches when sometimes you’re not. Insurance language could be way clearer, honestly.
