Comprehensive coverage can be a lifesaver, sure, but let's not pretend it's always the best choice for everyone. Had a client once who drove an old beater worth maybe $2k tops. He insisted on full coverage despite my advice—ended up paying more in premiums over two years than the car was even worth. Sometimes it's smarter to just set aside a rainy-day fund instead of throwing money at insurance you'll probably never use...
Totally get where you're coming from. I drive an older car myself, and after crunching the numbers, comprehensive just didn't make sense for me either. Sure, hailstorms or falling branches can happen, but realistically, how often? I've been putting aside a bit each month into a separate savings account instead—kind of my own DIY insurance fund. It's reassuring knowing the money's there if something does happen, but I'm not throwing cash away on premiums for coverage I probably won't use.
Your client's story is exactly why people need to look at their own situation carefully rather than just going with the default "full coverage" option. Insurance companies love selling peace of mind, but sometimes that peace of mind costs way more than it's worth. Glad you tried steering him in the right direction—even if he didn't listen!
"Insurance companies love selling peace of mind, but sometimes that peace of mind costs way more than it's worth."
Exactly this. I've owned cars ranging from "please just start today" to "still got some life left," and every time I've done the math, comprehensive coverage just didn't add up. Sure, there's always a freak hailstorm somewhere (sorry Kansas guy!), but mostly you're paying premiums for scenarios that rarely happen. Setting aside cash each month is smart—I've done it for years, and it's saved my bacon more than once.
I've always been skeptical about comprehensive coverage too, especially on older cars. But I commute daily through an area that's notorious for deer jumping out at the worst possible moment... and after a close call last year, I decided to run the numbers again. Surprisingly, comprehensive wasn't as pricey as I'd assumed—at least not for my car and driving record. It ended up being just a few bucks extra per month, so I figured why not?
Still haven't hit a deer (knock on wood), but a branch fell on my windshield during a storm last winter. Insurance covered it without hassle, and honestly, that alone probably paid for a couple years' worth of premiums. I'm still not totally convinced it's always worth it, especially if your car's barely hanging on... but sometimes it's cheaper than you'd think. Might be worth double-checking your quotes every now and then.
- Been driving older cars for decades and always skipped comprehensive coverage, figured it was just throwing money away.
- But your point about deer hits close to home—literally. Had a buddy who totaled his car hitting one last fall, and it got me thinking twice.
- Ran some quick quotes recently and was honestly surprised it wasn't outrageous. Still skeptical overall, but if it's just a few extra bucks, might be worth the peace of mind.
- That hail story is nuts though... I'd assumed comprehensive automatically covered stuff like that. Guess that's another reminder to actually read the fine print before signing up.
- Bottom line: comprehensive isn't always a waste, especially if you're in deer or storm country. But if your car's value is pretty much scrap metal anyway, might still be better off pocketing the cash and hoping for the best.
