I get where you’re coming from, especially about the math not adding up on an old beater. But I gotta say, as someone who’s been stranded in the middle of nowhere after a fender bender, sometimes that “peace of mind” is worth more than it seems. Like you said,
True, but if you rely on your car for work or long trips, losing it overnight can be a nightmare. I’d probably still keep at least comprehensive if hail or theft is common where you live—those things hit outta nowhere and can total a cheap car fast. Just my two cents.“sometimes you have to play the odds anyway.”
Honestly, I get the peace of mind angle, but when I was scraping by in college, I dropped everything except liability on my old Civic. Yeah, it was a gamble, but the extra $40 a month made a real difference. Never got hit by hail or anything, but I did have to duct tape the bumper once... worth it for me, but I get why some folks want that backup.
Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. I’m actually looking at insurance options for the first time and honestly, liability-only is tempting when you’re counting every dollar. I ran the numbers and for my 12-year-old Corolla, full coverage would cost almost as much as the car’s worth in a year or two. Statistically, the odds of a total loss seem pretty low, especially since I park in a garage and don’t drive much outside of town.
Still, there’s that nagging “what if” factor. Like, if someone sideswipes me and takes off, I’d be stuck paying out of pocket. But then again, that extra $40 or $50 a month adds up fast—could use that for groceries or textbooks. Guess it comes down to risk tolerance and how much you rely on your car. For me, I’m leaning liability-only unless my situation changes.
For me, I’m leaning liability-only unless my situation changes.
Honestly, I get the logic—liability-only makes sense for an older car, especially if you’re not driving much. But that “what if” factor you mentioned? It’s real. I had a friend with an old Civic, got rear-ended, and the other driver took off. No coverage for hit-and-run meant he was out a couple grand. Made me rethink my own policy, even though my car’s worth way more than a 12-year-old Corolla.
But yeah, if you’re parking in a garage and barely driving, odds are in your favor. Just curious—have you checked what uninsured motorist property damage would cost? Sometimes it’s not much extra and covers those hit-and-run headaches.
Yeah, I totally get where you’re coming from. Liability-only is tempting when you’re trying to save every dollar, especially if your car isn’t worth much on paper. But that hit-and-run scenario is exactly what made me add uninsured motorist property damage a couple years back. It was like $4 extra a month for me, and honestly, the peace of mind is worth it.
One thing I’d add—if you’re still making payments on your car, most lenders require more than just liability. But if you own it outright and it’s not worth much, liability plus uninsured motorist can be a solid combo. Also, check if your state has “no-fault” rules or weird exclusions. Some places make it harder to claim under uninsured motorist for hit-and-runs.
I used to think “I’ll just risk it,” but after seeing a friend’s car get sideswiped in a parking lot with no note, I realized how fast those repair bills add up. Sometimes the cheapest option isn’t actually the cheapest in the long run...