I get the logic behind always going comprehensive, but honestly, it's not always worth it. Had a similar experience a few years ago—hailstorm trashed my hood and roof. But when I did the math, the premiums I'd have paid over the years would've been way more than the repair cost. Sometimes it's just luck of the draw... insurance companies aren't charities, they're betting against you.
I definitely get your point—especially if you're driving something older or less valuable. For my classic cars, though, comprehensive is kind of a must-have. Here's why: first, vintage parts are expensive and tough to source, making even minor hail damage repairs pretty costly. Second, specialized bodywork isn't cheap either...trust me, I've been there. So while it's true insurance companies are betting against you, sometimes it's worth hedging your bets when you're dealing with something rare or sentimental.
Yeah, I hear you on the classic car thing—makes total sense. For me, even though my ride's just a regular family hauler, comprehensive still feels worth it. Had a buddy whose minivan got pummeled by hail last summer, and repairs were surprisingly steep. I'm just cautious by nature, I guess...rather pay a bit extra upfront than get blindsided later. But hey, everyone's gotta weigh their own risks, right?
Haha, hail damage is no joke—seen some cars come in looking like oversized golf balls. Comprehensive coverage isn't flashy, but when Mother Nature decides your car needs a makeover...trust me, you'll be glad you checked that box.
Yeah, comprehensive coverage is definitely underrated. I've seen folks skip it thinking they're saving money, then a freak storm hits and they're stuck footing a massive repair bill. It's one of those things you don't appreciate until you really need it...
