 |
   |
|
| |
|
|
| Subject |
Well, my family had a $2K car and didn't have full... |
|
| |
|
|
| Posted by |
Only1Z on January 13, 2007 at 8:28 PM |
|
| |
This message has been viewed 31 times. |
|
| |
|
|
| In Reply To |
Full coverage probably isn't worth it on an NA. posted by Dustin on January 13, 2007 at 06:06 PM |
|
| |
|
|
| Message |
coverage on it way back in the day. It got blasted into overnight and we got nothing for it. The collision and comprehensive insurance on that car was not very large. We could have carried it for 6+ years before the break even point. At the time, my mom didn't have a lot of money to replace it and it would have been a fairly small increase to the monthly premium to have it, which would have been easier to pay than paying $2K-$3K for another used car all at one time. To me, it's worth it to always carry full coverage. It's insurance so you might make out and you might not. But that's what insurance is all about. Of course, this probably depends on the car as well. I just don't like dealing with accidents and would rather drive to State Farm, get a check, and say, "Have a nice day." Of course, that's just my opinion. In a few small situations, I guess I could see not carrying it especially if you're financially stable enough to be able to take a $4K-$5K hit. But I think people think about it backwards. The people that aren't as well off financially are the ones that need to have full coverage. And typically they're the ones that don't. If you have an $800 car, by all means, carry liability only. :-)
"It's a little longer and skinnier than the one i bought." - TTZMatt on 10/22/06
|
|
| |
|
|
| Follow Ups |
|
|
| |
|
|
Post a
Followup |
You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
