Funny you mention Missouri—I just bought my first policy and thought I was set, but then my cousin started talking about PIP and how it’s not even a thing in some states. It’s honestly confusing. I kinda assumed insurance was the same everywhere... guess not. I’m still not convinced I need all these extras, but I get why folks play it safe.
Insurance rules are like barbecue recipes—every state swears theirs is best. Missouri’s more “you do you” with PIP, while places like Florida make it mandatory. I get the confusion... half my clients think “full coverage” means the same everywhere. Spoiler: it doesn’t.
Missouri’s more “you do you” with PIP, while places like Florida make it mandatory.
That’s the wild part—cross the state line and suddenly your “full coverage” isn’t so full anymore. I’ve had folks move from Kansas City to Tampa and get sticker shock when they realize PIP is non-negotiable. It’s like ordering sweet tea up north and getting a blank stare. Anyone else notice how some states treat PIP like a must-have, while others act like it’s optional seasoning? Wonder if it’s just about accident rates or if there’s more to it...
That’s the wild part—cross the state line and suddenly your “full coverage” isn’t so full anymore.
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t know if it’s just about accident rates or even about “full coverage” meaning the same thing everywhere. From what I’ve seen, a lot of it comes down to how each state wants to handle medical bills after a crash. Like, in Florida, PIP is mandatory because they’re a no-fault state—your own insurance pays out first, no matter who caused the accident. That’s supposed to cut down on lawsuits and get people paid faster, at least in theory.
But here’s where I kind of disagree with the idea that it’s just about safety or risk. Sometimes it feels more like a political thing or just how the insurance lobby shakes out in each state. Missouri lets you skip PIP if you want, but then you’re rolling the dice if you get hit by someone with lousy coverage. I’ve had friends who thought they were saving money by dropping extras, then got stuck with hospital bills after a fender bender.
Honestly, I wish there was more consistency. It’s not just about moving from one place to another—it’s that you can have “full coverage” in one state and be underinsured in another without even realizing it. The fine print gets people every time.
If you’re trying to keep costs down (like me), it’s tempting to go bare minimum, but sometimes that backfires. I always tell folks: check what your policy actually covers before you move or switch states. The rules change fast, and what looks like a good deal can end up costing way more if something goes sideways.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s just about accident stats. Feels like a mix of local politics, insurance company influence, and maybe even how much folks trust their neighbors to have decent coverage. Just my two cents...
You nailed it about the fine print—what counts as “full coverage” is all over the place. I’ve lived in three states and had to re-read my policy every time I moved. It’s wild how much the rules shift just because you cross a border. Ever notice how some states push uninsured motorist coverage way harder than others? Makes me wonder if that’s because they know folks are skipping PIP or just don’t trust drivers to carry enough insurance.
