Deciding between just liability or going all-in with full coverage on Liberty Mutual

Honestly, I’ve wrestled with this exact dilemma for years. My record’s not spotless, so insurance is already pricey, and full coverage on my 10-year-old sedan just felt like throwing money away. The one time I did need it (hail storm), the payout barely covered repairs after the deductible - felt like a hassle more than a help. Now I just stash the savings each month. It’s nerve-wracking at first, but after a while you get used to it… and seeing that emergency fund grow kinda helps with the anxiety. Still, every time I park in a sketchy lot, I wonder if I’m tempting fate.

Totally get the anxiety, especially when you’re parked somewhere sketchy and your car’s just sitting there like a sitting duck. Here’s how I usually break it down: I ask myself if I could stomach paying for a new (to me) car if mine got totaled tomorrow. If the answer’s “uh, not really,” I lean toward keeping full coverage. But with an older car, sometimes it feels like you’re insuring a toaster. I’ve switched back and forth a couple times, honestly… depends on how risky I’m feeling and how much road-tripping I’m planning that year. The emergency fund idea is solid though - seeing that number climb does help calm the nerves.

I totally relate to the “insuring a toaster” feeling with older cars. I had a 2008 Civic that was basically worth less than my annual premium for full coverage, but I still kept it for a while just because of the peace of mind. The thing that always gets me is, what’s the actual payout if something happens? Like, if Liberty Mutual says my car’s worth $2k and my deductible is $1k, am I really getting enough back to make it worthwhile?

“I ask myself if I could stomach paying for a new (to me) car if mine got totaled tomorrow.”

That’s exactly how I try to frame it too. But then I start thinking about all the little “what ifs” - like, what if someone hits me and takes off, or there’s hail damage? Does liability-only actually cover any of that, or am I just rolling the dice? Sometimes I wonder if it’s smarter to put those extra premiums into savings instead, but then again... one bad day and you’re out way more than you saved.

Anyone else ever regret dropping full coverage after something unexpected happened?

Honestly, I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve actually gone the other way with my last couple of cars. Once the value dropped below $3k, I switched to liability-only and just kept a “car emergency” fund on the side. Full coverage felt like throwing money away after a while - especially with high deductibles. Hail or hit-and-run is a risk, sure, but for me, the math just didn’t add up anymore. Haven’t regretted it yet, though I do keep my fingers crossed every storm season...

I get your logic - once a car’s value drops that low, it’s hard to justify paying for full coverage. I’ve seen a lot of folks do exactly what you’re describing: drop down to liability and stash the difference in a rainy day fund. It’s definitely not a one-size-fits-all thing, though. Have you ever run the numbers on what it’d actually cost you if, say, hail did total your car? Sometimes the peace of mind is worth it, but if you’re comfortable with the risk and you’ve got savings set aside, that can make a lot of sense.

Out of curiosity, do you factor in where you park or how often your area gets hit with storms? I know some people who only switch back to full coverage certain times of year, like during hail season, but that seems like a hassle unless your insurer makes it easy. Either way, sounds like you’ve got a handle on it. Just gotta hope Mother Nature keeps it chill...

Honestly, I’m with you on the “not one-size-fits-all” thing. I’ve done the math a few times and, for me, once my car’s value dipped below $5k, full coverage just didn’t make sense. I’d rather pocket the difference and risk it. That said, you brought up a good point:

Have you ever run the numbers on what it’d actually cost you if, say, hail did total your car?

I live in an apartment complex with open parking, so yeah - hail is always in the back of my mind. But after looking at how much extra I’d pay for full coverage over a couple years versus what my car’s worth, it just doesn’t add up. If Mother Nature decides to go nuts, I’ll be annoyed but not financially wrecked.

Switching back and forth for “hail season” sounds like a pain unless your insurer is super flexible. Mine isn’t. At that point, I’d rather just keep a little extra cash stashed away and hope for the best. If my car gets totaled by weather or something random, guess I’ll be shopping Craigslist sooner than planned...

Honestly, I get the logic, but I still lean toward keeping full coverage even on a cheap car. Had a buddy lose his old Civic to hail last year - he thought the same way you do until he was suddenly out a ride and scrambling for cash. You said,

“If my car gets totaled by weather or something random, guess I’ll be shopping Craigslist sooner than planned...”

- Totally get where you’re coming from.
-

“used cars aren’t exactly cheap these days”

Can’t argue with wanting peace of mind, especially these days. I mean, I drive a pretty pricey car, and honestly? I just can’t bring myself to go liability-only. Maybe it’s overkill, but the idea of someone sideswiping me in a parking lot and then I’m stuck with a fat repair bill... nah, not worth the stress for me.

But I get why some folks roll the dice - insurance isn’t cheap either, and if your car’s older or you’ve got cash set aside, maybe that gamble makes sense. Still, with used cars costing what they do now, it almost feels like you’re insuring an “asset” instead of something that just loses value every year. Funny how that flipped so fast.

I do wonder sometimes if I’m just paying extra for my own nervousness, though. Anyone else ever feel like full coverage is more about sleeping easy than actual numbers adding up?

Title: Deciding between just liability or going all-in with full coverage on Liberty Mutual

Totally get what you mean about peace of mind being worth the extra bucks. There’s something about knowing you won’t be on the hook for a random fender bender or a rogue shopping cart attack that helps you sleep better, right? I’ve seen a lot of folks do the math and still lean toward full coverage just because - like you said - cars aren’t exactly getting cheaper to replace these days.

If it helps, here’s how I usually break it down when I’m weighing liability vs. full coverage:

1. Check your car’s value. If it’s still worth a good chunk (think: enough that you’d be upset paying out of pocket), full coverage tends to make sense.
2. Look at your deductible and savings. If you could comfortably cover repairs or even a total loss, liability might be fine... but if that would sting, maybe not.
3. Consider your risk tolerance. Some people are cool “gambling” with just liability, others (me included) get anxious at the thought of paying thousands for someone else’s mistake.

And yeah, sometimes paying extra is just about avoiding stress - even if the numbers don’t always add up perfectly on paper. Nothing wrong with that, honestly. Insurance is basically renting peace of mind anyway... it’s just a question of how much you’re willing to pay for it.

Honestly, you nailed it with the “renting peace of mind” bit. I’ve seen folks regret dropping full coverage after a hailstorm or a hit-and-run, but I’ve also seen people save a bunch by switching to liability once their car’s value dipped. It really does come down to how much risk you’re cool with. If the thought of a surprise bill keeps you up at night, paying a little more now might be worth it. No shame in wanting to sleep easy.

I get the peace of mind angle, but sometimes people overestimate how much they’d actually get from full coverage if their car’s not worth much. After factoring in the deductible and depreciation, the payout might not be as big as you’d expect. I’ve seen folks surprised when their “full coverage” check barely covered a used replacement. Just something to consider before paying extra every month.

Title: Deciding between just liability or going all-in with full coverage on Liberty Mutual

Had a similar situation a couple years back with my old Corolla. Kept paying for full coverage out of habit, thinking it was the “safe” choice. Then I got rear-ended, and after the deductible and what they said my car was worth, the check barely covered half of what it cost to get a halfway decent used replacement. Honestly felt like I’d been throwing money away for years.

I get why people like the peace of mind, especially if you’re worried about something major happening. But once your car’s value drops below a certain point, it just doesn’t add up. The premiums plus deductible can be more than what you’d ever get back.

That said, I know some folks who just feel better knowing they’re covered no matter what. Maybe if you’re in a spot where you can’t afford to replace your car out of pocket, it’s worth it for the stress relief alone. But yeah, for me, switching to liability only once my car got older made way more sense. Haven’t looked back since.

Guess it really comes down to how much risk you’re comfortable with and how attached you are to your ride. Just wish I’d done the math sooner instead of assuming “full coverage” always meant full protection... turns out it’s not quite that simple.

I’ve been through this debate a few times, especially as my cars have aged. Once your car’s value drops below, say, $4-5k, full coverage starts to make less sense financially. The payout just isn’t there after you factor in the deductible and what insurance thinks your car is worth (which is almost always less than you’d hope). I kept full coverage on my old Civic until it was about 10 years old, then finally did the math and realized I’d basically be paying more in premiums over a couple years than I’d ever get back if something happened.

One thing people don’t always consider: if you’re not making payments on the car and could handle replacing it or going without for a while, liability is usually enough. But if you absolutely need your car for work or family stuff and don’t have savings set aside, sometimes the peace of mind is worth the extra cost - even if it’s not technically “worth it” from a numbers perspective.

Also, watch out for those little add-ons Liberty Mutual tries to sneak in. Roadside assistance, rental reimbursement... they sound nice but can really bump up your premium without adding much value if you rarely use them.

At the end of the day, it’s about how much risk you’re comfortable with. I know folks who swear by keeping full coverage forever just because they hate surprises. Personally, once my ride hits that “beater” stage, I drop down to liability and put what I save into a repair/replacement fund. Hasn’t failed me yet - knock on wood.

It’s definitely not one-size-fits-all though. Just gotta be honest with yourself about what you’d do if your car got totaled tomorrow.

You nailed it with the “it’s not one-size-fits-all” point. I see a lot of folks hang onto full coverage out of habit, even when their car’s value has dropped way below what they’re paying in premiums. But you’re right - if you can’t afford to replace your car out of pocket, sometimes that extra peace of mind is worth the cost, even if the math doesn’t totally add up. One thing I’d add: sometimes people forget about uninsured motorist coverage, which can be a lifesaver if you get hit by someone with no insurance. It’s not always bundled with liability, so it’s worth double-checking your policy.

One thing I’d add: sometimes people forget about uninsured motorist coverage, which can be a lifesaver if you get hit by someone with no insurance.

Yeah, that’s a good call. I used to skip over that part thinking it was just extra fluff, but after my neighbor got rear-ended by someone with zero insurance, I changed my tune. Not fun paying out of pocket for someone else’s mistake. Full coverage isn’t always worth it for older cars, but I’d never drop uninsured motorist now - just too risky for my wallet.

Uninsured motorist is one of those things you don’t really think about until you need it. I used to think, “Hey, everyone’s supposed to have insurance, right?” but the reality is, a lot of folks are driving around without it. I had a fender bender a couple years back - luckily the other guy was insured, but the process still took forever. Can’t imagine how much worse it would’ve been if he wasn’t.

I get the temptation to drop everything but liability on an older car, especially when the premiums start creeping up. But uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage is one of those “better safe than sorry” deals for me. It’s not just about your car, either - medical bills can get wild if you’re hurt and the other driver can’t pay. I’d rather skip a few lattes a month than risk getting stuck with a huge bill because someone else decided to roll the dice.

Funny how the stuff you think is “extra” ends up being the most important when things go sideways.

I get where you’re coming from, but I’ll throw out a different angle - sometimes, especially with an older car, it really does make sense to stick with just liability. Here’s why:

- If your car’s not worth much, paying extra for uninsured/underinsured motorist property damage or even collision might not add up. You could end up paying more in premiums than you’d ever get back if the car’s totaled.
- Medical coverage is huge, but a lot of people already have decent health insurance that would cover injuries from a crash. That can change the math on whether you need the extra auto coverage.
- Some states require uninsured motorist coverage, but in others it’s optional. If you’re in a place with low rates of uninsured drivers, maybe it’s less of a risk.

Not saying it’s never worth it - just that sometimes, especially if you’re pinching pennies, liability alone isn’t as reckless as it sounds. I’ve seen folks put that saved cash toward a newer ride down the road. It’s all about what you’re comfortable risking.

I get the logic, but as someone who’s had a couple tickets and a not-so-great driving record, I look at it a bit differently:

- If you’re considered high-risk (like me), liability is the bare minimum, but one accident - even if it’s minor - can cost way more than you’d think. Repairs, legal stuff, and higher rates after a claim add up fast.
- Health insurance helps, but it won’t cover property damage or lawsuits. If you rear-end someone and total their car, liability only goes so far, especially if you don’t have much saved.
- Older cars are usually cheap to fix, but not always. I had a 2008 Civic that got sideswiped - repairs were more than the car was worth. If I’d had collision, at least I’d have gotten something back.

I get wanting to save cash, but sometimes the “what if” isn’t worth the risk. It really depends on your comfort level with risk and how much you rely on your car day-to-day. For me, paying a bit more for extra coverage is just less stressful... even if my car’s not worth much on paper.

I totally get where you’re coming from. I used to think full coverage was overkill for my old beater, but after a couple close calls, my perspective changed. Like, I had this old Mazda 3 that wasn’t worth much - maybe $2k on a good day. I figured if something happened, I’d just eat the loss and move on. Then one winter, I slid into a curb during an ice storm. Bent the suspension pretty bad. The repair quote was almost what the car was worth, and of course, I didn’t have collision at that point.

What really got me wasn’t even the car itself - it was realizing how much I actually rely on having wheels. Missing work for a week while scrambling to find a replacement ride sucked way more than I expected. If I’d had that extra bit of coverage, at least I would’ve gotten something to put towards another car.

I know some people are comfortable rolling the dice, especially if they’ve got savings or another way to get around. But with my driving record (let’s just say insurance companies aren’t sending me birthday cards), one more accident could really mess things up financially.

It’s kind of like paying for peace of mind, even if it feels like throwing money away sometimes. The rates sting, but not as bad as being out a car and still owing money or dealing with lawsuits would. I guess it just comes down to how much risk you’re willing to carry yourself versus handing it off to the insurance company.

Not saying full coverage is right for everyone, but after getting burned once, I’m not eager to repeat that lesson...