Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Car Insurance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-29-2023, 06:13 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
6,341 posts, read 4,894,516 times
Reputation: 17999

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post

Now that the claim has been paid by the insurer, and I would only continue liability coverages on the car (since they won't cover collision/ comprehensive) -- do I ask for the pro-rata refund of the collision/ comprehensive cost since the August incident? Nothing has happened to the car (it lives in a garage in the winter), but there is also apparently no ongoing insurance for those coverages.
They "won't cover" or they "aren't covering."

If your current renewal still has comp and collision you ARE covered for those perils and you could theoretically have a comp claim (fire, theft) or a collision claim (drunk uninsured driver careening up your driveway and through your garage door at high speed). Don't laugh. Could happen. I adjusted two homeowner claims where exactly that happened. Damaged the house and the car that was in the garage.

If you don't want the coverage, you have to call your agent and ask for it to be deleted. Generally, it will get deleted the day you call up and ask.

You can certainly ask for it to be deleted retroactively to the date of the loss. Understand that they are not obligated to do that because you have been covered.

Though it couldn't hurt to ask.

Last edited by adjusterjack; 11-29-2023 at 06:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-30-2023, 12:52 PM
 
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,103,317 times
Reputation: 57750
I recently had someone smash the side mirror on my F150. That would be covered by my comprehensive, but with the $250 deductible, being so easy to replace, I just bought a new one at Ford for $285 and installed it myself. Mine only had the remote adjust and heating. Now if it had the power extending (tow) or the blind spot warning light it would have been closer to $1,000, before installation. If you are aware of what parts cost and can do some work yourself the insurance is not as important. Today one of the biggest expenses is the windshield, that too comes under comprehensive. With the cameras like Subaru "EyeSight" when a rock hits it up high near the center it cannot be fixed, must be replaced, and then the cameras have to be re-calibrated. For all of that at either Subaru or Safelite it's about $1,100.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2023, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Sunnybrook Farm
4,511 posts, read 2,656,277 times
Reputation: 13001
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
The thread is six years old, but still relevant.

Comp tends to be pretty cheap, so I don't mind carrying it. Here in Vermont, and probably plenty of other places, one of the big reasons you might have a comp claim is for hitting a deer: might not total the car, but possibly expensive body work.
Insurance costs are highly regional, and also dependent on the type of car and the driver.

In my case, for two drivers both over 60, essentially clean driving records, one claim EVER between the two of us and our combined 102 years of driving, and our vehicles are a medium size non-luxury SUV and a medium-trim pickup, liability is something like a third or a quarter of our total bill. I'll be dropping collision and comprehensive on both cars (7 years old and 8 years old) in the next year, I expect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2023, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
6,341 posts, read 4,894,516 times
Reputation: 17999
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit33 View Post
I'll be dropping collision and comprehensive on both cars (7 years old and 8 years old) in the next year, I expect.
I wouldn't go by the age of the vehicles. Unless you have very large amounts of discretionary funds.

I just priced my friend's 2014 Honda Accord with 95,000 miles. $13,000 to $14,000.

I have self-insured comprehensive and collision on my low priced cars for 25 years. My car and my truck can each be replaced for $4500 to $5000. I'm comfortable with that. Higher prices I would fully insure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2023, 05:06 PM
 
17,302 posts, read 12,233,399 times
Reputation: 17240
Quote:
Originally Posted by adjusterjack View Post
I wouldn't go by the age of the vehicles. Unless you have very large amounts of discretionary funds.

I just priced my friend's 2014 Honda Accord with 95,000 miles. $13,000 to $14,000.

I have self-insured comprehensive and collision on my low priced cars for 25 years. My car and my truck can each be replaced for $4500 to $5000. I'm comfortable with that. Higher prices I would fully insure.
Depends on cost of the coverage. For me, at $11/month I'm comfortable keeping comp even in that $4-5k range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2023, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
6,341 posts, read 4,894,516 times
Reputation: 17999
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed View Post
Depends on cost of the coverage. For me, at $11/month I'm comfortable keeping comp even in that $4-5k range.
The trouble with keeping comp without collision on an older car is that your chances of causing a crash or getting hit by an uninsured driver are much, much greater than having your old car stolen or damaged by fire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2023, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Sunnybrook Farm
4,511 posts, read 2,656,277 times
Reputation: 13001
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S View Post
Do the math.........do you save $200 or $900 a year?

How long to reclaim the savings. You would need 35 years at $200 a year to get your $7000 car back in the event of a crash/theft. But at $900 a yr you would be even in less than 8 years of driving without an incident.

Of course you could have an accident tomorrow and your savings calculation is out the window!
Let's focus on fundamentals for a minute.

Does anyone here believe that auto insurance companies are charitable institutions?

OK, with that out of the way, the way insurance companies make money is that they take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims. Period. End of discussion.

No product being offered (collision, comprehensive, liabilty) by an auto insurance company is offered with the expectation they'll lose money on it. They only offer and price this insurance to make money. That means - let's review again - that they'll take in more money in premiums than they pay out in claims.

If you think it would take 35 years to "get your $7000 car back in the event of a crash/theft" then what that means is that the actuaries have calculated the probability of you making that claim is even less - that it would occur even less frequently than once in 35 years - and that's why your premium is low.

The question is, can you replace a $7000 car should you need to, without seriously affecting your financial viability?

The wise thing to do is to insure against losses that would be catastrophic. Thus liability - run into someone, cause a lifetime disabling injury, and it could run into millions. That's something that would be financially catastrophic for almost anyone. Insure against that!

For most employed people, an unplanned $7000 cost to replace a used car would be an inconvenience. Few people are going to have to live on the street in a cardboard box because of such an expense. Ergo, no need to insure.

Unless you have SOLID KNOWLEDGE that you, personally, somehow are an extreme outlier for your age, vehicle type, driving history, vehicle usage, geographical location, etc. and thus expect to make a whole lot more claims than the rest of your cohort, insuring against minor losses is a money losing proposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2023, 11:05 AM
 
17,285 posts, read 22,006,628 times
Reputation: 29617
Quote:
Originally Posted by rabbit33 View Post
Let's focus on fundamentals for a minute.

Does anyone here believe that auto insurance companies are charitable institutions?

OK, with that out of the way, the way insurance companies make money is that they take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims. Period. End of discussion.

No product being offered (collision, comprehensive, liabilty) by an auto insurance company is offered with the expectation they'll lose money on it. They only offer and price this insurance to make money. That means - let's review again - that they'll take in more money in premiums than they pay out in claims.

If you think it would take 35 years to "get your $7000 car back in the event of a crash/theft" then what that means is that the actuaries have calculated the probability of you making that claim is even less - that it would occur even less frequently than once in 35 years - and that's why your premium is low.

The question is, can you replace a $7000 car should you need to, without seriously affecting your financial viability?

The wise thing to do is to insure against losses that would be catastrophic. Thus liability - run into someone, cause a lifetime disabling injury, and it could run into millions. That's something that would be financially catastrophic for almost anyone. Insure against that!

For most employed people, an unplanned $7000 cost to replace a used car would be an inconvenience. Few people are going to have to live on the street in a cardboard box because of such an expense. Ergo, no need to insure.

Unless you have SOLID KNOWLEDGE that you, personally, somehow are an extreme outlier for your age, vehicle type, driving history, vehicle usage, geographical location, etc. and thus expect to make a whole lot more claims than the rest of your cohort, insuring against minor losses is a money losing proposition.

Very wordy response, I'd agree with most of it. Your last line is the concern: if the whole car is totaled or stolen that isn't a minor loss.

It comes down not what you and I can afford but its about the OP of this thread and what they will save.

Don't cut the coverage if you don't have the money or are not going to save a significant amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2023, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Sunnybrook Farm
4,511 posts, read 2,656,277 times
Reputation: 13001
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Guy997S View Post
Very wordy response, I'd agree with most of it. Your last line is the concern: if the whole car is totaled or stolen that isn't a minor loss.

It comes down not what you and I can afford but its about the OP of this thread and what they will save.

Don't cut the coverage if you don't have the money or are not going to save a significant amount.
Well, I'd submit that "minor loss" is something that might well be an inconvenience, but won't ruin your finances for years to come.

If having to spend $7000 to replace a well-used car is going to ruin your finances for years to come, well, yes, maybe you have to suck it up and keep that thing insured, even though you'll end up spending more for insurance premiums than you'll ever get back - unless, as I noted, you're certain that you personally are an outlier that definitely will make more claims than the average for your cohort - and the insurance companies are pretty darn good at assessing risk.

But for most employed people who can afford to pay full coverage insurance on a car in the first place, $7000 to replace a well-used car is an inconvenience, not a life-altering expense. Now a liability judgement for a million bucks? THAT is a life-altering expense. One's house burning completely down? Life-altering expense. Major cardiac or cancer illness and treatment? Life-altering expense. THOSE are the things where you absolutely have to have insurance.

So many things circle back to living below your means. If you can't cover the replacement of your car, then you have to pay MORE by keeping it insured. If you can figure out a way to get AHEAD of that eight ball instead of always BEHIND, then you can get on the beneficial circle. I see people every day working in jobs where I KNOW they aren't making enough money to properly support their lifestyles (House, car, vacations, etc.), and then they are stuck in that vicious cycle - having to insure things because you're overbought and now you can't afford to replace them is just one example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive > Car Insurance

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top