On 11 Mar 2005 10:23:19 -0800, wrote:

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> On 10 Mar 2005 17:16:18 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> You're talling about two different kinds of insurance he liability
>> and collision.
>> On the first car, liability pays for the other car, collision pays
>for
>> yours.
>> On the second (POS) car, why have collision?
>
>I think you are missing my point. On the first car I have full coverage
>(my car and other car are covered in accident -amounts don't matter). I
>don't think I should have to pay seperate liability on the POS car.
>That should be automatic with me having liability on the first car.
>What higher costs are there to the insurance agency when I drive my POS
>car? None. If anything they are off cheaper. There is less (zero) of a
>chance of me wrecking my new car when I am driving my old car. So if I
>do wreck, they are only out the amount of the car I hit, and not the
>amount of my new car.

And if you wreck your first car, and then drive the second car?

Other than that, obviously you can't drive both at the same time. Just
as obviously, you aren't driving one car exclusively, or you wouldn't
need to insure the second car at all.
While it would certainly be possible to come up with a rate schedule
that would only have one premium for those who have two driven cars,
it would still be as high.
>
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Define "full coverage".
>> Is that the minimum required liability by the state, or someother
>> combination of
>> liability/collision/comprehensive/uninsured/underinsured policy?
>> What limits?
>> I've actually heard people claim they have "full coverage" (as
>defined
>> by the agent) that is only minimum liability coverage.
>
>> The fact that you say your full coverage doesn't get cheaper as the
>> car ages leqads me to believ ethe car itself isn't insured, but
>you're
>> only carrying liability insurance. Collision coverage usually gets
>> less expensive as the value of the car goes down with age.
>
>I have full coverage(collison, liability, uninsured motorist etc), I
>know this for a fact. In Texas using state farm my collision coverage
>never goes down. That is my whole gripe. If you don't mind me asking,
>where do you live and who insures you?

I live in Phoenix, AZ., and use USAA.
>
>
>> Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"