Had a similar experience a while back, though not military-related. Left my car parked at my parents' house when I went backpacking for about 6 months. Figured I'd save some cash by dropping coverage to storage-only, but man, the hoops they made me jump through! Had to send photos proving it was in a locked garage and everything. And yeah, coverage was bare-bones—basically just theft or fire.
Funny thing is, when I got back, the battery was completely dead and the tires looked like pancakes. 😂 So much for "secure storage." Honestly, insurers probably factor in stuff like that more than we realize—cars sitting idle can be ticking time bombs of random maintenance issues.
Makes me wonder though: do you think insurers actually save money offering these storage policies? Or are they banking on folks forgetting to switch back to full coverage right away? Seems like there's always a catch with insurance companies...
Had a similar thing happen when I left my car sitting for just 3 months—battery was toast and tires needed air. Makes me wonder if insurers count on these little issues cropping up, knowing we'll hesitate to switch back right away...
- Totally agree, insurers probably do factor in that inertia—once you're parked with them, switching back feels like a hassle.
- Also noticed my brakes got rusty after sitting idle for just a month... wonder if insurers anticipate these little maintenance headaches too?
Had a similar experience when I parked my car for deployment a few years back. Came home after about six months, expecting to just hop in and drive... but nope. Tires had flat spots, battery was toast, and yeah, brakes were rusty as heck. Ended up spending a good chunk of change getting everything roadworthy again.
From what I've seen, insurers might not directly factor in these minor maintenance headaches, but they certainly know vehicles that sit idle can have issues down the road. They probably bake that into their overall risk assessments without us even realizing it. Military discounts definitely exist, but they're probably offsetting some of those savings by anticipating the extra wear and tear from long periods of inactivity. Always worth checking the fine print and comparing options before assuming you're getting the best deal out there.
Interesting perspective, hadn't thought about insurers indirectly factoring in idle vehicle issues. As someone shopping around for insurance for the first time, do you think it's smarter to pause coverage during deployment or keep minimal coverage active to avoid these hidden costs later?
