car insurance full or only liability

[Tiggeroo]

what do you think the breakig point is on going with only liability. I just bought a 96 mustang gt used for cash. I bought it on ebay and got a very good deal. It is in excellent condition. Kelly BB value for personal sale is $3400. Dealership sale is $5900. I have two college sons who occasionally drive this. They are much more likely to have the sort of accident that isn't covered by liability.
1 - what value might an insurance company assign to this vehicle?
2 - which type of coverage would you choose?
3 - how much would you pay for collision before you would think your money would be better used elsewhere.
Keep in mind that it's highly unlikely if I save $1000. on insurance I"ll bank it somewhere safe to have in the event of an accident. And I really love this car. I would say replacement value for it would be somewhere around $4000.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Sooo...

I work for an insurance co. I can guarantee you if the car is ever totalled, the value the insurance co. will assign to it will not be Kelly Blue book, but probably a local market survey and it will most likely be much less than you expect. (I handle about 3 totals a day and very rearely are the people satisfied with what they get...insurance in my state does not cover replacement of the car, it just covers the actual cash value of the car). If you are concerned, ask your insurance company up front what value they use if the car is totalled and ask them to get you a figure.

I'd personally always take collision coverage. It's worth it. That means you will be covered for repairs to your own car in an accident. It does not matter if you are at fault or not.

If you do not have collision on your policy, even if the other party is at fault, your insurance company can not help you. Your only choice if you do not have collision is to go through the other party's policy. This is often a big headache and expect to get less than 100%. Maybe 50% if you are lucky unless it is extremely clear cut (ie. someone rear ends you, or hits your parked car and even then, don't be so sure the other party won't fight the accusation or lie).

Liability Only will only mean that the insurance co. will pay out damages to the other party if you happen to hit someone and are considered at fault.

Some states/insurance companies offer limited collision on policies where they will ONLY pay damages to your car if you are clearly NOT at fault.

Here is an example from my job last week. IV = the person insured with my company. OV= the other party.

IV and OV have a collision. IV claims that she is in the right lane with her right blinker on. As she goes to turn right, OV passes her on the right and she turns into her. Passing on the right is not allowed in this state.

OV calls me up in hysterics, crying and screaming because she does not have collision on her policy with her carrier. She expects my company to pay 100% of her damages. I ask her her version of events. She tells me that she was in the right lane and IV was turning from the left lane and hit her. She says she was not passing at all.

So now I have two different stories. I get pictures of the road. I get police reports. I ask for independent witnesses who know neither party. The way this road is set up, either way could be feasible. There are not witnesses. There is no police report. I look at the damage on both cars. It could have happened either way.

To be fair, I offer OV 50%. OV FLIPS OUT swearing and crying and screaming. I cooly advise her that she has absolutely no proof that it happened how she said and that I have absolutely no proof it happened as my IV said it did. Therfore the only fair thing to do is offer 50%.

Crying and talking about lawsuits, she hangs up. She can't really sue. She has no proof. She's stuck with 50%.

If she had collision on her own policy, she would not have to deal with it. Now she's on the hook for 50% of her repairs.

I get claims like this a lot.

Having collision on a car is worth it. Even if you are a good driver. Sit with your agent and have them go over your options.

 

[Cindy B]

You are in NJ, right?

Of course with NJ's car insurance being so high, I feel your pain.

We compromised in our house. My 1999 Jeep has liability only, and my DH's Expedition has full coverage. Of course we paid cash with both these cars, so technically we are only liable for the NJ minimum of liability only.

Since the Expedition is worth more, and driven more, it would cost more to replace than the Jeep.

 

[barkley]

take into consideration what some of the costs of a non totaling collision might run. we have a mustang and replacement/repairs that are seemingly minor can run major $$$. a collision that requires replacement of only 2 tires and rims (standard not fancy) can be several months worth of premiums.

 

[twojo21]

i work in insurance & the liability vs full coverage & which is better varies by company & what state your in, ie non fault ie florida or assigned fault ie illinois no to mention whos driving the car adult or young driver under 21 which would affect the overall premium. each company has their own acturial tables & values for vehicles which will not be kelly blue book value, once a vehicle is past 10 years old $1500 is normally deducted, again if the vehicle has over 100,000 miles $1500 is deducted from the value along with other defects, mechanical, dings, stains, etc.

i personally would choose liability only.

 

[Tiggeroo]

Yep I just got tires. I had to special order them. Big money. While there I priced the rims I have as my spare is not on a good rim. Even bigger money and that was for a used rim. We have a cherokee. Every part on the mustang costs twice as much. But in NJ insurance is so much. My thought is I"ll ask them what they'd consider the value on the vehicle. If the policy is 1/2 the value of the car I'll go with the collision. We have alot of cars with 3 college students. Now the kids each have their own policies. Boys 89 cherokee, liability, dd 99 cavalier liability only for past 3 years, 86 Audi liability only.

 

[Philadisney]

i was recently involved in a car accident where a co-worker loaned me their car for work telling me & my bosses that she was 'covered if anything happened.' i got in an accident and the car was totalled, and nobody is covering anything. it's going to be tied up in the courts for a while, but what will probably happen is that my co-worker will ask me to pay for her to get a new car, and i'm broke.
soooo....based on my experiences.....everyone should have collision, especially if someone else is driving your car who won't be able to pay for it if the car is damaged/totalled. (but of course, i'm a bit bitter since i've just been so badly burned!)