Insurance gripes

Big Bill wrote:
> 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.

Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car as
when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.


> I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
> collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

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.


> >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?


> Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have?
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car
as
> when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.

Whether or not your costs go down, your insurers costs go way down. If
you total your 7-year old car you will get approximately $0.00 off your
collision. This begs the question why do you still carry collision?
If you like giving your money away to strangers, then please drop me
your name, number, and address.

>
>
> > I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
> > collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.
> >
> > --
> > Bill Funk
> > Change "g" to "a"

I'm required since I am still paying on it. Yes, I know that is dumb,
still kicking myself...
I'm paying cash for all cars in the future (did so in the past, and
never had full coverage).

> > Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
> > lesser valus of the vehicle.
>
> Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car
as
> when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.

It still costs the same amount of labor to fix the car whether it's new
or 7 years old. Only the parts will change, and that cost is minimal
compared to labor.

Larry Bud wrote:
> > > Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
> > > lesser valus of the vehicle.
> >
> > Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car
> as
> > when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.
>
> It still costs the same amount of labor to fix the car whether it's
new
> or 7 years old. Only the parts will change, and that cost is minimal
> compared to labor.

Maybe it costs the same amount of labor to fix the car, but collision
will never pay more than blue-book. As blue-book goes to zero, the
costs of collision (to the insurer) approach zero.

Larry Bud wrote:
> > > Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
> > > lesser valus of the vehicle.
> >
> > Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car
> as
> > when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.
>
> It still costs the same amount of labor to fix the car whether it's
new
> or 7 years old. Only the parts will change, and that cost is minimal
> compared to labor.

Not true. If my new $20,000 car gets hit they spend up to $20,000 to
fix it, any more and it is totaled (I get $20,000). If my no longer new
and now only worth $5000 car gets hit they spend up to $5000, any more
and it is totaled (I get $5000). Yet I pay the same regardless.

>> a) By law, the insurance covers the car no matter who is driving it.
>> Even if you told them about everyone who lives with you, you might
>> have the habit of lending it to a friend or neighbor (which you
>> wouldn't legally have to tell the company about unless you give him
>> his own key).

> I mean besides it being a law the insurance companies dictated. I
> should have the option of owning my car and deciding only I can drive
> it so I don't have to pay more insurance. I understand you are an agent
> and all but even you have to admit it is a crock.

Most forms of insurance, including auto coverage, are standardized by
law (although there are variations between states, like most other
"uniform acts"). As the law stands, no one can write you a policy
that covers the car only when you are driving it.

You _can_ get a policy with a "rider" that specifically excludes
certain people (as when, for instance, you have a non-driving cousin
with a DUI conviction staying at your house). But companies hate to
write these because if he does drive and wrecks, the courts will
sometimes make the company pay anyway.

I blame the lawyers.

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...

> Most forms of insurance, including auto coverage, are standardized by
> law (although there are variations between states, like most other
> "uniform acts"). As the law stands, no one can write you a policy
> that covers the car only when you are driving it.
>
This is not correct, at least in WA and OR. The insurance is
called "Broad form" and it gives liability coverage to you in
*any* vehicle. (it says "owned and non-owned" on my insurance card.)

I have this insurance because I have four vehicles, and do not wish
to pay for four insurance policies.

There are only two insurance companies that sell it (in Wa, at least)
Unitrin, and Cascade. Ask your agent if it is available to you in your
state.

Bernard

In article >, John David Galt wrote:

> Most forms of insurance, including auto coverage, are standardized by
> law (although there are variations between states, like most other
> "uniform acts"). As the law stands, no one can write you a policy
> that covers the car only when you are driving it.

Of course it's the insurance companies that had the law written this way.