Insurance gripes
 

1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
insurance companies making more money?

2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my car
goes down?

In article .com>, wrote:
> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
> insurance companies making more money?

I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.

> 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my car
> goes down?

Because that's a small percentage of the cost.

You can wreck 2 cars with 1 driver.

Insurance is loosely based on your car value, but also reflects the
amount and cost of accidents in the area you travel.

It's not fair, it's discriminatory.... unless you can post a liability
bond with the state you live. Basically, you'd need to set the minimum
liability (usually $25000.00) in Bond Account and prove that you have
the assetts to uphold extended fault liability. Then you dont have
insurance (self insured).

wrote:
> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i
can
> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
> insurance companies making more money?

If you're talking about liability, it doesn't matter whether you wreck
your own car or not. You could with car #1 wreck someone else's car in
the morning and with car #2 wreck someone else's car in the evening.
Another possibility is that you could lend your cars to other people
and they could actually wreck simultaneously.

>
> 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my
car
> goes down?

Because you are not insuring your equity in the car. You are assuring
against liability caused by your car. A POS car can generate just as
much liability as a top of the line model. If anything your rates
should go up because your brakes, etc are getting older.

On 10 Mar 2005 13:59:33 -0800, , one of an infinite number of monkeys at
an infinite number of typewriters said the following in
rec.autos.driving...

> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
> insurance companies making more money?

The insurance companies do it because they can do it and there is nothing
you can do about it since you are required by most states to carry auto
insurance.

> 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my car
> goes down?

Again, because they can (or don't have to depending on how you look at
it) because auto insurance is required and not optional.

I should have been more specific...

1. Why do I not have the option to keep a second car (liability only)
for me and me alone in case my first car breaks or what not and not pay
any more insurance. If that means others can't drive it so be it. I
currently pay full coverage for my new car, and to keep my second
(cheaper) car I have to pay more per month. If I wreck my first car,
the insurance agency is out the cost of a new car plus the cost of the
car I hit. If I were to have been driving my 2nd car my insurance
agency would only be out the cost of the car I hit. In every case it is
cheaper for my insurance company if I have a second POS car, yet I
still have to pay more. If anything I should get a discount for the
times I drive my POS.

2. I'm talking about full coverage. Why doesn't my rate go down when my
car gets older? If I buy a 2005 car and get it insured full coverage I
pay the rate for a brand new car the whole time I own it. 5 years down
the road I'm still paying the full rate, yet if someone else were to
buy my exact same car in 2010 they would get the rate of a 5 year old
car. The only way I can get the cheaper rate would be to switch
insurance or sell my car and buy one just like it.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:01:50 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article .com>, wrote:
>>> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
>>> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
>>> insurance companies making more money?
>>
>>I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
>>insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.
>
> If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to
> carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to
> drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time.

That would be their problem. Why should I pay the insurance for someone
else renting a car? Why should I pay insurance for someone who will never
drive my cars? If someone not on my policy without their own
insurance wrecks my car, the claim will likely be denied anyway the way
things seem to work.

> (Brent P) wrote:
>> I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
>> insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.

I agree. Although then there would be more disputes after a hit-and-run
when the car can be identified but the driver can't. (Not to mention the
case where it's parked and rolls down a hill -- yes, the last driver is
liable but good luck finding out who he was!)

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to
> carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to
> drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time.

In some states this is already required. Even where it isn't, you can
buy "non-owner" coverage, & without it most rental car companies won't
rent to you.