[MI-IRISH]

If you buy a new car,you have to have auto insurance,it's the "law",now if i buy say a new pair of socks,which can be used over and over,like the auto,i don't need insurance.If i bought it,why should i or anyone else have to insure it if it is my property?

[magellan]

Originally Posted by MI-IRISH

If you buy a new car,you have to have auto insurance,it's the "law",now if i buy say a new pair of socks,which can be used over and over,like the auto,i don't need insurance.If i bought it,why should i or anyone else have to insure it if it is my property?

Actually, if you own the car outright, you're not required by law to have insurance on your actual car. You're only required to have liability coverage for the damage you might inflict on others by using that car (PL/PD, which stands for Personal Liability/Property Damage). If you lease or have a car loan, the bank requires you to cover their property from damage by others, since they "own" the car.

(worked in insurance right out of college)

[Ishten]

Magellan's right. I think Michigan requires PIP coverage also. There are ways to self-insure but I can't remember how and its complicated. Not that you would, but please do not let your insurance lapse, Michigan is one of the few states that does not allow uninsured drivers to sue for injuries. In other words, if you let your insurance go and a dump truck runs a red light and paralyzes you, you cannot sue.

[chance2jump]

If you don't want to insure the car that you own outright, no problems. But, if you were to jump the curb and crash into my house with said car, that is your responsibility to fix - and most people don't have several thousand stashed away for such circumstances. Thus, the birth of PLPD.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by chance2jump

If you don't want to insure the car that you own outright, no problems. But, if you were to jump the curb and crash into my house with said car, that is your responsibility to fix - and most people don't have several thousand stashed away for such circumstances. Thus, the birth of PLPD.

Very true however, no-fault is more about medical.

[Driller1]

Michigan Auto Accident Attorneys Handling Personal Injury Cases For Car, Truck & Motorcycle Accidents

This is an excellent site for information about Michigan no-fault.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by MI-IRISH

If you buy a new car,you have to have auto insurance,it's the "law",now if i buy say a new pair of socks,which can be used over and over,like the auto,i don't need insurance.If i bought it,why should i or anyone else have to insure it if it is my property?

Solution: Pay cash so you own the car. If you don't have enough to buy a new car with cash buy a used one. I suggest 10% of your yearly pay is the total outlay of money for your car. An absolute maximum of 30%.

Another great thing about not having to pay comp and collision is the rates, we pay $18/car/month for our cars and that's up from $14 2 years ago. That's with 100/300 coverage. Pretty good for a mid-20's couple .

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

Solution: Pay cash so you own the car. If you don't have enough to buy a new car with cash buy a used one. I suggest 10% of your yearly pay is the total outlay of money for your car. An absolute maximum of 30%.

Another great thing about not having to pay comp and collision is the rates, we pay $18/car/month for our cars and that's up from $14 2 years ago. That's with 100/300 coverage. Pretty good for a mid-20's couple .

That is not great, that is taking a HUGE risk. You need uninsured and under insured for at least $500,000/$500,000. Mid-20's??? What if you are disabled?? I pay cash for all my vehicles and have 5 million. The under insured is to protect me from people like you.

[wheelsup]

I disagree 100/300 coverage is certainly not taking a HUGE risk as you put it. It's significantly more than state mandated minimum requirements. Also I'm not sure who sells coverage for 500/500 all the coverages I've seen are sold as something like 500,000 per person 1,000,000 per accident etc.

I would love to have higher coverage yet our budget does not allow for it at this time. We took paycuts so we had to cut expenses, better that than living in the car. I personally think 100/300 is a good trade off between price and coverage levels.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I disagree 100/300 coverage is certainly not taking a HUGE risk as you put it. It's significantly more than state mandated minimum requirements. Also I'm not sure who sells coverage for 500/500 all the coverages I've seen are sold as something like 500,000 per person 1,000,000 per accident etc.

I would love to have higher coverage yet our budget does not allow for it at this time. We took paycuts so we had to cut expenses, better that than living in the car. I personally think 100/300 is a good trade off between price and coverage levels.

I know it is a hard choice. Just so you know you are gambling. Not all companies do have under insured. You have to look around.