Which is better full coverage or liability auto insurance?
Which is better full coverage or liability auto insurance?
I live in wisconsin where it is not mandatory to have car insurance. I'm 26 and been driving since i was 16 without insurance and i'm planning on getting a policy started soon and i have no idea as to which type of insurance to get. I drive a 1997 chevy lumina with around 222,000 miles on it. If i get full coverage will it cover my car damages as well as the other persons damages or will liability do that and will i be required to pay a deductible? I am thinking about getting up to $100,000 in coverage.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
7 Responses
1.31.2010
It depends on how much you want to spend. A 1997 Lumina with over $200K miles isn't really worth much. Look up the blue book value, although adjusters don't really use blue book to determine the value of a vehicle. If you can afford to replace that vehicle without insurance coverage then just get liability. Liability covers injuries or property damage that you cause to another party. Liability should always be your main concern. If you have a newer vehicle then I would suggest getting "full coverage" which includes comprehensive and collision. Comprehensive covers theft, vandalism, hail, fire, etc. Collision covers you colliding with something other than a bird or animal, also it covers your vehicle if your vehicle is hit by a hit and run driver. If you elect to get full coverage and you file a claim under your insurance policy to repair your vehicle then yes, you will be responsible for paying your deductible Source(s): Licensed Insurance Agent
1.31.2010
How much is your vehicle worth? That will answer your question. Add up the additional premium you would pay to have full coverage (versus liability) and a deductible. Subtract that value from your vehicle's value. If it's zero or negative it is 100% worthless, if it's a low value it is still likely to be worthless.Based off the age and mileage of your vehicle you should probably be looking at just liability only. Liability will only cover the other driver if you are responsible for an accident it will not cover your vehicle.In regards to having auto insurance not being mandatory? You are mistaken. It is still mandatory in WI. UNLESS you have a surety bond in place. Many people have this misconception in several states.Every state requires liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility (ie surety bond).
1.31.2010
Full coverage is not a whole lot more money than Liability. Get a quote from a local agent for both.One way to look at your decision is if you total the Lumina, do you have enough money to buy another car? If so, then maybe you want to just keep Liability. If you are always broke like me and would need another car right away, then full coverage makes the most sense. Full coverage will also cover windshield repair, towing and lock smith services that you would have to pay out of pocket if you only had liability.
1.31.2010
Your car is old with a lot of millage, it is probability not worth much so just go with liability. If you are not sure ask your agent how much money you would get if you had full coverage. Then decide if it is worth paying the extra cost.
1.31.2010
I am not gonna say that I am totally sure about the answer.it is really depending on the personal feelings.thus it would better for you to try to find the best answer yourself.Here http://www.Autoinsurancepro.infois a good resource for reference though.
1.31.2010
You can compare how the insurance quotes would change, for example here – autoinsurance.maclenet.com
1.31.2010
I JUST SAVED A LOAD OF MONEY ON MY CAR INSURANCE BY FLEEING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT!