If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
> (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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Toronto insurance sodomy | RichA | Ford Mustang | 18 | February 27th 05 02:21 AM |
Canada Insurance madness! NEVER go online! | RichA | Ford Mustang | 18 | February 17th 05 06:43 PM |
First time insurance charges | kr0 | General | 0 | December 17th 04 02:28 PM |
Auto Insurance Question (foreign driver) | Mike | General | 0 | August 16th 04 06:52 PM |
Insurance company to pay for impound fees of totaled car? | Gunbu | General | 2 | April 29th 04 08:39 PM |