Ok, so most all of what I own is paid for (and could be replaced without a new note), with one exception, the 'V'. When that's over with I'm going liability only per state regs. Not had a fender bender in like forever, and I'm an offensive driver....what's behind me now matters NOT.... How does the hive handle car insurance???
if you were to make a small mistake, or end up in a wreck that's not really your fault but ends up as a no-fault, are you comfortable wadding those cars without full coverage and walking away?
usually when a car gets down to "throwaway" status value-wise, full coverage is just a few bucks more a month anyways, so if something happens, you're at least not out the cost of the car.
In reply to Strizzo: Also living here in the Htown area what part of my theory to save $$$$ on Ins. especially the no-fault angle is skewed....my naivete thinking the other driver is fully covered and their ins. will take care of my plight????
Isn't that the line of thinking from anti-vaxxers that has reintroduced measles?
The only vehicle I own with full coverage is the wife's Mustang. And that one gets it because she wants it.
Everything else is liability only. There is nothing in the yard I can't live without so full coverage is a waste.
Liability and comprehensive.
Comprehensive covers things like uninsured drivers, theft, vandalism, tree branches falling on your car, and deer jumping out in front of you. For the tiny premium more, it's worth it.
As soon as a vehicle is paid off it's always put on liability only...I see no need for full coverage.
In reply to Beer Baron:
Some of this varies by state. In South Carolina, uninsured motorist coverage is separate from liability, comprehensive, or collision. Like liability, it is also a required coverage.
I don't carry comprehensive or collision, because I basically self-insure. If you can afford to repair or replace the car, I don't think there is any reason to pay someone else to carry that risk for you.
I'm recently interested in the low limits that are standard in many states. 100k/300k won't get you far in current hospitals.
My bigger fear is not replacing my own car, but having something dumb happen and getting stuck with being personally sued for hundreds of thousands above and beyond my coverage limits.
Do you guys buy umbrella?
What's the cost differential? For an extra 100-200/year collision is worth it. If it's an extra 400-500+/year it doesn't take long to buy a replacement cheap car. Somewhere around 5k is my threshold on car value (one wreck in last 35 years).
I carry full coverage on any vehicle that would cost more than 5k to replace. I didn't do any math to come up with that number. That's just what I'm willing to gamble.
In reply to Toyman01:
In CA and Ohio you can get uninsured coverage separately, but comprehensive also includes uninsured.
Depends on the car. On my S2000, I figure the probability of someone slashing the roof to get into it is high enough to be worth it. I've made use of it when I hit a deer on the highway. ON the beater minivan, I just have liability.
In reply to Beer Baron:
Makes sense. I don't drive anything that anyone would want to steal. 
I used to carry just liability and comp. The comp was mainly for the glass coverage. but that was on vehicles under $1,500.
We had to put full coverage on the Elantra and Sedona when purchased because of the loans, but after the loans wer paid off I just left the coverage on them.
I pay $1200/yr total for full coverage on both vehicles, and when I looked at the savings it wasn't enough to justify the added financial risk.
I remember getting screwed by having liability only. I was hit (no question I was the victim in this accident) and the other guys insurance would only pay me half the damages on my car because I was only carrying liability
Mitchell wrote: Isn't that the line of thinking from anti-vaxxers that has reintroduced measles?
Measles is caused by lack of insurance??
I have liability only on all my vehicles other than the 70 Ford truck. Hagerty full coverage on that one. I do have an umbrella policy I think it makes sense if you have assets worth going after.
In reply to mad_machine:
That doesn't make any sense.
I was young and stupid and that was the line they fed me when they handed over the cheque. My fiat had incurred $1800 in damages (and totaled a buick) and they paid me $900
Robbie wrote: Do you guys buy umbrella?
I have umbrella coverage. That typically requires buying the liability policy up to the max value, but they don't care about comprehensive or collision.
One additional benefit to having collision is that even in situations where it's not your fault, you can file with your own company and get the car fixed without having to fight anyone. Then you let your insurance company (or their lawyers, if necessary) fight with the other guy's insurance company in subrogation where you don't have to worry about it.
I had a guy pull an illegal right on red in front of me ending in a rear end collision. I hit him. Pa is a no fault state, He was cited at the scene for illegal right on red at the scene. What followed was the multi year long lunacy of him trying to sue the pants off of me for "pain". After going through that I'm worried about just buying minimum policies. It was a total nightmare and after 6 years of fighting my insurance company finally paid him single digit thousands to go away.
I like comprehensive coverage for the glass protection. Especially on the motorhome where I've got about $2400 worth of windshield hanging out there in front of me.
Robbie wrote: I'm recently interested in the low limits that are standard in many states. 100k/300k won't get you far in current hospitals. Do you guys buy umbrella?
Yes. We used to carry the max, but our agent saved us money by lowering the limits and taking out an umbrella (a mill).
Beer Baron wrote: In reply to Toyman01: In CA and Ohio you can get uninsured coverage separately, but comprehensive also includes uninsured.
No, it does not. Unless you have some type of bizarre policy I've never come across, UM and UIM (underinsured) are NOT covered under COMP. COMP is deer hits, fire, theft, flood, falling objects. It will not cover you for uninsured.
Do not confuse "no fault" with liability coverage. No fault is referring to medical bills you incur in an accident. It's very, very different than being liable for an accident.
It's your personal choice to carry liability only coverage on your car. I would caution against carrying minimum limits if you have assets worth going after.
This is going to vary by state. I'm in MI and I generally carry collision and comprehensive on cars I purchase while they are still valuable and it would really hurt to try to replace them if they get balled up. I have never actually caused an accident, but I am very concerned about liability, so carry additional coverage there as well. The prospect of working hard just to become some bottom feeders lottery ticket is not appealing.
WilD wrote: This is going to vary by state. I'm in MI and I generally carry collision and comprehensive on cars I purchase while they are still valuable and it would really hurt to try to replace them if they get balled up. I have never actually caused an accident, but I am very concerned about liability, so carry additional coverage there as well. The prospect of working hard just to become some bottom feeders lottery ticket is not appealing.
Michigans' insurance laws are really wacky, very unique compared to the other 49 states. So yeah, you want to have good coverage.
You'll need to log in to post.
