Had a similar debate with myself last summer in Montana. We were out near Glacier and the roads weren’t exactly smooth—lots of gravel, some potholes, and not much around if something went wrong. I usually skip the extra insurance too, but with the kids in the back and nowhere close to a service station, I just didn’t want to risk it. Ended up paying for the coverage and, of course, nothing happened...but honestly, I slept better at night. Those “off-road” loopholes drive me nuts though—gravel shouldn’t count.
Those “off-road” exclusions are honestly a headache. Gravel roads in Montana aren’t exactly avoidable, right? I get why you went for the extra coverage, especially with kids in the car and miles from help. The peace of mind is worth something, even if nothing happens. Did you check if your regular auto insurance or credit card would’ve covered it? Sometimes those policies have sneaky gaps when it comes to rural or unpaved roads... It’s frustrating how much fine print there is.
Honestly, I’ve run into that same issue with rental contracts—one time in Wyoming, the agent pointed out that even a well-maintained gravel road counted as “off-road” for their purposes. It’s wild. My regular insurance didn’t cover rentals on unpaved roads, and my credit card policy was even stricter. Have you ever tried to actually file a claim in one of those situations? I wonder if anyone’s had luck getting them to pay out when something happens way out in the sticks...
I get what you’re saying about the contracts being super strict, but honestly, I think a lot of folks overestimate how likely it is for insurance to actually deny a claim just because you were on a gravel road. I’ve had a couple of fender benders on backroads (Montana and Idaho), and while the rental company made a fuss about “off-road” use, my regular insurance still stepped up. They asked a ton of questions, sure, but as long as I wasn’t doing anything wild—like mudding or driving through a creek—they didn’t care that it was unpaved.
Credit card coverage is a whole different beast, though. Those policies are full of loopholes, and I’ve never had much luck with them. But I wouldn’t say it’s a lost cause with regular insurance. Sometimes the rental companies just want to scare you into buying their overpriced coverage. I guess it depends on your risk tolerance, but I’d rather take my chances than pay double for a week’s rental just because I might hit a pothole out in the boonies.
That’s actually reassuring to hear. I’ve been stressing about all the “what ifs” with rental insurance, especially with all the fine print. Your experience makes me feel a bit better about relying on my regular policy. Guess it’s not as black-and-white as the rental desk makes it sound.
