View Full Version : Full coverage insurance on older vehicles
On older vehicles that are paid off and 10+ years old, do you keep full coverage on those vehicles? My daily drive is my 94 4runner and I just have liability. But when I hit up the range I carry guns worth more than my hoopty. That's about the only time I keep anything of value in the truck.
If it's your daily driver liability only covers what you hit, it won't replace your daily driver.
Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.
I understand my coverage with liability. I've always just kept liability on older vehicles worth less than $4000. I'd hate to have someone break in to steal my guns while making a stop at walmart or picking up dinner after a long day of shooting
I doubt your vehicle insurance would cover the guns. Your homeowners insurance would though.
I think.
I always keep full coverage on my vehicles. I figure if they get stolen and not recovered I at least get something out of the deal.
Depends on your financial situation... Can you afford another 4000 hoopty tomorrow? Or the 20 bucks a month to have it fully insured. I choose the latter
fullmann
05-18-2014, 19:50
My 4runner is 14 years old, 225k on the clock, paid off for quite a while now. Still has full coverage on it.
The difference in cost between liability only and full coverage is like $8/month for me.
Totally worth it in my mind when some crack head decides they really like the look of my factory radio, and I'm not stuck with a $2500 bill for window/dash/radio replacement.
I keep full coverage on all my cars.
Even that red camry
Great-Kazoo
05-18-2014, 20:08
If you own a house and carry liability / basic car coverage. Hit someone, they could be living in your house till you die and you'll be paying for it. We carry FC on every vehicle.
One of our friends was doing 5pmh, hit a drunk who ran out from between 2 trucks. Liability only, damn near lost their house and everything else they owned.
We pay more up front, to avoid potential loss down the road.
I guess I've never really checked what the price difference is. I'll have my agent (Dave_L) run my a quote tomorrow
FC on all my vehicles. I carry enough coverage for, at minimum, what the vehicle is worth.
I guess I've never really checked what the price difference is. I'll have my agent (Dave_L) run my a quote tomorrow
Dave_L does auto? I was with american family until I bought my new car and then Progressive beat AF covering both full coverage above minimium requirements by over the cost of just insuring 1.
hghclsswhitetrsh
05-18-2014, 21:34
Full coverage on everything. Scheduled on the firearms.
Snowman78
05-18-2014, 21:39
Full coverage ONLY covers the vehicle, not the personal property inside the vehicle.
Some serious misconceptions of what coverage does in this thread.
Liability only covers damage you do to others. Comprehensive covers damage to your vehicle that is NOT caused by a collision. Collision covers damage to your vehicle caused by collision.
What most people understand "full coverage" to mean, is just liability, comprehensive, and collision. There are several other coverage options to add, and none of them really interact with the others.
Kwando, nothing in your vehicle will be covered by your auto policy unless it was installed at the factory, or otherwise permanently attached (i.e. bolted down). That awesome subbox that is just riding in the back cargo area isn't covered unless it is bolted in, and even then there is usually a specified limit to how much audio extras will be covered ($1,000). Anything IN your vehicle like CD's, clothes, sunglasses, guns, money, GPS, air freshener, gifts, etc, are specifically excluded from the policy. Those would be items covered under your home owners or renters policy.
Jim, the example you gave of your friends nearly losing their house to hitting a pedestrian is an example of causing more damage or injury than their liability limits. If liability limits are a concern, the only way to alleviate is to raise the limits. Adding comp and collision ("full coverage") has zero effect on those limits. Colorado state minimum is $15,000 for liability limits. See my other thread for example of when/why you might need more than that. I carry $100,000 property damage, and $100,000/$300,000 bodily injury, just as an example. The highest I've seen on an auto policy alone is $1,000,000. I'm sure some people carry umbrella policies, but I don't ever see those as I only deal with the auto policy.
Now, as far as carrying full coverage on an older car, there are several things to consider.
First, you do not get to choose the amount of coverage you carry for your vehicle, as the policy coverage is for the Actual Cash Value of your vehicle. Whatever your vehicle is worth, is the limit of your vehicle coverage. The exception to this, is if you have some sort of specialty, classic, collector type of vehicle, in which you can insure it for a stated value (with an appraisal). Most people do NOT have this type of policy, and you'd know it if you did.
The higher your deductible, the lower your payment will generally be. I've seen deductibles ranging from $50-$2,500 with $250, $500, and $1,000 being the most common. Using the example of a vehicle that is worth $4,000, IN MY OPINION, carrying full coverage is absolutely worth it. I once had a vehicle totaled. After my $500 deductible was removed, I got a check for $4,100. That was plenty enough for me to go purchase another vehicle. Much less than that and the value rapidly decreases.
Right now I have a 1999 Chevy Cavalier with hardly any clear coat and broken aftermarket sunroof with a piece of plexiglass siliconed in place. I USED to have full coverage with a $500 deductible; until I remembered that I only paid $900 for the car, and at best it was only worth maybe $1,200. When you have a car so low in value, it doesn't take much to total it. The area between my deductible, and what would be considered a total loss ($800ish) is very narrow. More importantly however, Even if someone handed me $1,200 cash, I couldn't realistically replace it for that amount since I got a deal on it (off this board!). My car is literally worth more to me as an operable vehicle, than it would be as the cash amount it is worth. In my situation, not worth the full coverage. I can still have the decent property damage and bodily injury limits, without the collision cost. If something happens to this car (which actually happened last week), I'll just write it up as a loss and junk it.
So like DFBrews pointed out, it really depends on whether having the money for your totaled vehicle will help you get a new vehicle or not. If your car gets "totaled" by taking a hit to the front fender, but is still completely drivable, and you can't even replace the car for the amount it is worth, you're going to keep driving it all banged up anyway, and you might as well have saved the difference every month anyway.
I tend to ramble, let me know if I can be more clear.
Thanks for the clarification, Irving. I was pretty certain personal property wasn't covered.
+1 Irving!!!! I was about to chime in, but it wouldn't have been as good as your thorough explanation!
I handle nearly 1,000 auto claims a year, so I'm good to go for explaining policy basics if anyone has any questions.
ZERO THEORY
05-19-2014, 07:41
I carried full coverage on my '99 Jeep WJ. It got totalled out, and I bought it back salvage for just over $200, and then I received a check for an additional $5800 give or take a few dozen. NADA on it was only $4K and some change, but I had receipts for my tires, shocks, springs, driveshaft, track bar, etc. as well as all of my receipts from O'Reilly for belts, hoses, switches, etc. Sold it salvaged to a bodyman co-worker for $850.
Had I just had liability, I'd have been stuck either trying to part out or sell the vehicle damaged, which would've netted me MAYBE $2K. Or I could've fixed it; fender damage (which on a unibody essentially means frame damage), paint, radiator, headlights, and all. At least $3500 out of pocket.
Sorry Irving... I had a brain fart. I have a rider policy on my camera gear and guns. So that should cover if I'm parked somewhere and someone break into my car to steal my guns.
SouthPaw
05-19-2014, 08:52
Right now I have a 1999 Chevy Cavalier with hardly any clear coat and broken aftermarket sunroof with a piece of plexiglass siliconed in place. I USED to have full coverage with a $500 deductible; until I remembered that I only paid $900 for the car, and at best it was only worth maybe $1,200. When you have a car so low in value, it doesn't take much to total it. The area between my deductible, and what would be considered a total loss ($800ish) is very narrow. More importantly however, Even if someone handed me $1,200 cash, I couldn't realistically replace it for that amount since I got a deal on it (off this board!). My car is literally worth more to me as an operable vehicle, than it would be as the cash amount it is worth. In my situation, not worth the full coverage. I can still have the decent property damage and bodily injury limits, without the collision cost. If something happens to this car (which actually happened last week), I'll just write it up as a loss and junk it.
I have debating about full coverage on my hoopty/commuter. I keep full coverage on my truck and liability only on the Honda. I drive the honda 5-7 days a week; roughly 200 miles a week. My truck gets used to drive the gym and around on weekends if I have places to go, other wise it sits in the driveway. With the upcoming hail season I was thinking full coverage on my Honda might be beneficial as they would total it out, I could buy it back with a salvage title and pocket a bit of money. It is a pretty beat up now but mechanically sound.
Not a bad idea for the Honda. Once the vehicle has been totaled, you generally cannot get comp and collision again.
Snowman78
05-19-2014, 10:46
I have debating about full coverage on my hoopty/commuter. I keep full coverage on my truck and liability only on the Honda. I drive the honda 5-7 days a week; roughly 200 miles a week. My truck gets used to drive the gym and around on weekends if I have places to go, other wise it sits in the driveway. With the upcoming hail season I was thinking full coverage on my Honda might be beneficial as they would total it out, I could buy it back with a salvage title and pocket a bit of money. It is a pretty beat up now but mechanically sound.
Full coverage would be a good idea for you, you also can get COMP and UMPD coverage for a little cheaper than full coverage (COLL and COMP).
SouthPaw
05-19-2014, 10:52
Thanks for the tips. I will look into rates today. It is a 1995 Civic with dents, dings, paint peeling, oxidizing, etc; but always starts right up and runs well. It would be ideal if they would total it out on the next hail storm, I get it back for few hundo's, pocket some money and drive it till the wheels fall off.
wctriumph
05-19-2014, 11:45
FC and the little things that go with like road side assistance even though the truck is almost 15 years old. Especially since the truck is almost 15 years old.
JMBD2112
05-19-2014, 11:49
You might want to check and see if there's a limit on theft coverage for firearms under you're renters/ homeowners insurance as well, ours was only $2500, so I had to open a seperate policy.
Just remember that there isn't really such a thing as "full coverage." It is just a term that has worked its way into common language. I get a lot of people who say things like, "What do you mean I don't have rental/medpay?! I've got full coverage!" Contact your agent and ask for a copy of your Declarations Page (Dec page) and they'll send it over so you can see what coverage you carry. The dec page is a one page summary of coverage and limits. Makes it real easy to see what you have and how much of it.
If Liability is your concern, then look at an umbrella policy. It will have minimums for your vehicles, house, etc. Some RV equipment and trampolines and such can makes those premiums higher.
Full coverage is something you want if you can't afford to replace your DD. Home owners (renters), or a separate policy is all that will cover firearms. You can add a rider for classic cars, firearms, jewelry etc. on most homeowners policies.
RonMexico
05-19-2014, 14:05
FC for my daily driver and extra coverage for my motorcycles. When I had my 78 ford i only had liability as not too many car on the road could wreck that bad boy and the repair costs would be cheap. If it was less than a $20 difference than I would go with full coverage. If you're a safe driver and it saves you $300-500 a year than I would go with liability only.
jerrymrc
05-19-2014, 14:19
The exception to this, is if you have some sort of specialty, classic, collector type of vehicle, in which you can insure it for a stated value (with an appraisal). Most people do NOT have this type of policy, and you'd know it if you did.
And most use a specialty company for this. The rates are much better and as long as it is a toy the limits I have are just fine. I think I put 400 miles on the TA last year. Currently have 2 cars stated value around 35K for both and the policy runs a little over $200 per year.
I am still playing with what I want for coverages after buying the G8. Even with a stellar record Progressive does not like it as evidenced by the amount they charged to cover it. 3 vehicles were $1000 per year. the G8 added $720 to that.[Rant2]
Wow, I pay half of that for my GTO...as the third vehicle.
FC on all mine with a $250 deductible.
While it varies with the carrier, a higher deductible if you have multiple vehicles will pay for itself. The premium difference between $250 and $1000 pays for itself in 4 years on my policies.
DenverGP
05-19-2014, 15:04
I am still playing with what I want for coverages after buying the G8.
I pay half that for my GTO
OT, but just had to say, Jealous of some nice pontiacs. I'm still sporting my Grand Prix. Started as just a regular GT, did a top swap, headers, rockers, etc.
It's a 2001, but still have full coverage on it, as many others mentioned, added very little to the policy cost.
Irving is right about one thing... Most people are CLUELESS about their actual policy and what it covers... I hear it/see it daily...
Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.
jerrymrc
05-19-2014, 16:56
OT, but just had to say, Jealous of some nice pontiacs. I'm still sporting my Grand Prix. Started as just a regular GT, did a top swap, headers, rockers, etc.
It's a 2001, but still have full coverage on it, as many others mentioned, added very little to the policy cost.
Have been a Pontiac person since 75. That is when I switched from Chevy. Current stable.[Flower]
01 GP/GT (wifes)
06 GP/GT/SC
09 G8/GT
72 GTO 400/4speed
76 TA 455/4speed
86 GP/2+2 aerocoupe
And a dodge truck.[panic]
Irving is right about one thing... Most people are CLUELESS about their actual policy and what it covers... I hear it/see it daily...
Sent by a free-range electronic weasel, with no sense of personal space.
Only the one thing?
Just today, again, I heard, "I'm pretty sure I have rental coverage, there is no reason it wouldn't be on there. Better check again." No rental on policy.
jerrymrc
05-19-2014, 21:15
Only the one thing?
Just today, again, I heard, "I'm pretty sure I have rental coverage, there is no reason it wouldn't be on there. Better check again." No rental on policy.
That is pretty bad. I did check a few years ago on mine because in the basic statements I had it did not say. Now if one has liability and expects comp/collision on a rental they are stupid. If one has comp/collision on a few cars and the Co does not cover a rental well shame on them.
My last a few weeks ago had been sideswiped to include a dent 1/2" deep across 20" of car. many other scratches as well. I filled out the form and the guy at the gate had no problem signing off on it.
Return the car 4 days later and the gal was like "this has been in an accident" I said nope.... And handed her my inspection. She seemed disappointed that she was not able to rake another across the coals. The rental company's must make a ton off of stupid people.
ZERO THEORY
05-19-2014, 21:32
And a dodge truck.
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-30824-Jack-Nicholson-Creepy-Nodding-SRXv.gif
I will admit that I don't like claims dealing with rental cars. The rental companies are ruthless about turning in claims for damage that they find, to the point that I am kind of scared to rent a vehicle. As an adjuster, I get put into a bad spot some what often. Here is basically how the situation goes.
Insured rents a car, returns it.
A month later, the rental company sends a bill and a letter, "Dear person, you returned our vehicle with damage. We repaired the damage, here is the cost of the repair + loss of use + administrative fee (COMPLETELY arbitrary)." They usually include some black and white photos that have been faxed at some point, and 8 out of 10 times, you can't even tell what you are looking at, let alone identify damage.
Insured turns in claim and says, "The car was fine when I returned it, I don't know what they are talking about. Please don't pay this."
We order a copy of the rental contract and see the insured's signature on the line that says, "I will be responsible for any damage to the vehicle upon its return." There is no prior damage listed on the "walk-around" portion of the contract.
I tell insured, "You signed a contract with the rental company saying you'd be responsible for any damages to their car. Your insurance policy is a contract saying in exchange for your policy premium, I"ll take care of any covered losses. This is a covered loss." Insured says, "Look, I would have known if there was damage to this vehicle, they're just messing with us."
My response is along the lines of, "I am contractually obligated to pay claims presented, and you signed a contract stating you would be responsible for damages to the car you rented. You didn't purchase the coverage they offered you, so now it falls to your insurance and me to take care of it. They've provided documented evidence of damage and repairs. Your contract indicates zero damage to the vehicle when you rented it, and damage when you returned it. The options are, 1) I pay for this damage minus your deductible, the loss of use, and the administrative fees; all of which are specifically not covered by your policy. Or, I deny the claim, and the rental company gives you a few days to pay and then will send you to collections. You can either take the hit on your insurance, or take the hit on your credit. Since I'm a nice guy, and I'm on your side, I'll do whichever one you want."
It always puts me in a crappy situation. For the most part I think the damage claims are legit, but occasionally I'll get some crap where the rental company is claiming a rusty dent, in some hard to notice location like under the rocker panel, when my insured had the vehicle for only a week during the summer. Then I can request the last five contracts of those who rented it before to see if any damage was noted, but it was usually missed all those other times.
So that's how I feel about rental damage. I'd say that taking a video of the vehicle when you pick it up, and when you return it is a great idea and not at all too cautious.
jerrymrc
05-20-2014, 04:40
I will admit that I don't like claims dealing with rental cars. The rental companies are ruthless about turning in claims for damage that they find, to the point that I am kind of scared to rent a vehicle. As an adjuster, I get put into a bad spot some what often.
That was a few years ago. A 1" scratch on top of the fender started out @ $1200. In the end it was 300 and I paid the 100 ded. Yep, poor B/W faxed pic's and all. The only thing that saved me in the end was a good adjuster and my dad having a talk with the local center that did the write-up. Still took the hit on the comp claim.
Without reading every post in this thread, here's how I present the full coverage vs liability only debate. Which is easier for you to do? Pay an additional X amount each month to have full coverage to ensure you get a check to go get a new car (even if it's just for the down payment on a newer car)? Or are you comfortably able to pull money from savings to go get a new car if something happens to yours? That is the easiest way to decide what you need.
As for rentals, we suggest you lower your deductibles as low as possible when renting a car. We have customers call us, give us the dates of the rental and we lower the deductibles down for that time span. The cost is pro-rated out so you only pay maybe $10 extra for that week of virtually no deductible. Nothing sucks more than paying a $500 deductible to fix someone else's car. Also, that allows us to cover the windshield too. So you don't get the enjoyment of buying them a windshield if it gets cracked while you have the car.
However, the ultimate answer for insurance is talk to your agent. Sit down once a year and do reviews. Everyone hates insurance but that's what causes so many headaches. People hate it so they try to go cheap on it and then get mad at claim time. If you don't trust/like your agent, find a new one. I promise a good one is worth looking for.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.