That's a good point, I'm still figuring this out myself. I drive an '09 Civic and was leaning toward comprehensive, but after reading this...might just stash that extra cash away instead. Seems smarter in the long run.
I get why you'd consider skipping comprehensive coverage, especially with an older car—it's tempting to just pocket the savings. But honestly, after witnessing a similar situation firsthand, I'm still leaning toward keeping comprehensive myself.
A couple of years back, my neighbor had an older Toyota Corolla—think it was around a 2010 or something—and decided to drop comprehensive coverage to save money. Seemed logical at the time since the car wasn't worth a ton. Well, fast-forward about six months, and we had one of those freak storms that dropped golf-ball-sized hail out of nowhere. It looked like someone had taken a hammer to his car overnight. Roof, hood, windshield... everything was pretty much trashed.
He ended up paying out of pocket for repairs because he still needed the car to commute. The irony was that the amount he spent fixing it up (just enough to make it drivable again) ended up being way more than he'd saved by dropping coverage in the first place. I remember him saying afterward that he wished he'd kept comprehensive—even though his car wasn't new or particularly valuable, it would've saved him from quite a headache.
Of course, everyone's situation is different, and maybe your risk tolerance is higher or your area isn't prone to extreme weather. But personally, I'd rather pay a bit extra each month for peace of mind than risk getting stuck footing a big repair bill unexpectedly. Just something to think about...
"Personally, I'd rather pay a bit extra each month for peace of mind than risk getting stuck footing a big repair bill unexpectedly."
I'm with you on this one. My car isn't exactly new either, but I've seen enough random stuff happen—fallen branches, hail, even a stray baseball—to know comprehensive coverage isn't just for newer vehicles. Sure, it's tempting to save a few bucks, but the peace of mind is worth it for me. Better safe than sorry, right?
"Sure, it's tempting to save a few bucks, but the peace of mind is worth it for me."
I get where you're coming from, but I've been crunching numbers lately and wondering if comprehensive coverage always makes sense. For newer cars or if you're in an area prone to hailstorms or falling branches, definitely. But for older vehicles with lower market value, sometimes the math doesn't add up. Like, if your car's only worth a couple grand, and you're paying extra every month plus a deductible... at some point, aren't you just paying more than you'd ever realistically get back?
I commute daily and my car isn't exactly showroom fresh either, so I've been debating this myself. Maybe it's smarter to set aside that extra money each month into an emergency fund instead? Curious if anyone here has actually done the math on their own situation—did comprehensive coverage really pay off for you in the long run, or did you end up spending more than you got back?
I had a similar debate myself a few years back when my trusty old Civic hit the 10-year mark. I figured, why keep paying extra for comprehensive when the car wasn't worth much anymore? Dropped it, felt pretty smart... until a freak windstorm sent a neighbor's trampoline flying into my driveway. Yep, trampoline vs. Civic—trampoline won. Lesson learned the hard way, haha. Sometimes peace of mind really does outweigh the math.
