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.

In article >,
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.
>
>> 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.

Yet if you replace an older car with a new car of a similar (or even
the same) model, collision shoots right up. It's because insurance
prices are on a ratchet.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

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).

ParaDygm wrote:
> 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).

At least $35k. California's limits of 15/30/5 are the lowest in the
nation.

Wealthy individuals and companies can get permission to self-insure
without posting a bond.

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 14:59:20 -0800, "Furious George" >
wrote:

>
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.

Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
lesser valus of the vehicle.

I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.

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

> Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
> lesser valus of the vehicle.
>
> I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
> collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.
>

Probably more people carry it than SHOULD carry it, in fact. After a car is
a couple of years old, you are losing money by paying for
collision/comprehensive coverage. (Even if your 2-year-old car is
"totalled", you won't get enough from the insurance company to make a
significant down payment on a new car, because they pay you wholesale value,
which is about 1/2 of retail value, which in turn is about 1/2 of what you
probably believe your car is worth, ha ha) But if your car is still
financed, you have no choice but to carry collision/comp. -Dave

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:49:07 GMT, "Dave C." > wrote:

>> Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
>> lesser valus of the vehicle.
>>
>> I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
>> collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.
>>
>
>Probably more people carry it than SHOULD carry it, in fact. After a car is
>a couple of years old, you are losing money by paying for
>collision/comprehensive coverage. (Even if your 2-year-old car is
>"totalled", you won't get enough from the insurance company to make a
>significant down payment on a new car, because they pay you wholesale value,
>which is about 1/2 of retail value, which in turn is about 1/2 of what you
>probably believe your car is worth, ha ha) But if your car is still
>financed, you have no choice but to carry collision/comp. -Dave
>
I think you're dealing with the wrong insurance company! :-)
Mine doesn't do that. It pays fair market value.

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

> I think you're dealing with the wrong insurance company! :-)
> Mine doesn't do that. It pays fair market value.
>

Have you actually made a claim? That "fair market value" is probably less
than the contents of your wallet at the moment. You'd be shocked and
dismayed if you saw how they figure it. It has NO RELATION AT ALL to what a
used-car dealer would have sold your car for, assuming that it was still in
good shape. In fact, from fair market value, you can't even SEE retail
price with a 20 foot long telescope. -Dave