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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On 11 Mar 2005 12:07:29 -0800, "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. While that's true, it's only part of the equation. As the value of the car drops, the amount the insurance company is willng to spend on fixing the car drops, which obviously drops their exposure, which *should* (and does, with most insurance companies) reduse your premiums on your collision coverage. IOW, if your car is worth, say, $20,000, they will spend up tot hat much, before they will consider totalling it. If, though, your car is worth, say, $2,000, that's all they will pay out to fix it. If the damage is more than that, they will total it, and give you the $2,000. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:38:01 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote: >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. IMO, it's not just the lawyers, but also the people who figure, "Well, this one time won't hurt." :-( From the experience of a friend: If someone you know "borrows" your car who is not only not listed on the policy application as a driver of that car, but is not supposed to drive it at all (IOW, the car is "stolen" in all but indictment), does drive the car and wrecks, the insurance won't pay. If you want to get the insurance company to pay, the insured party must sue the insurance company. But (again, from what I've seen) the insured party must have reported the car stolen, and done whatever steps need to be taken to get the perp indicted (yers, I know the state does the indicting, but the insured needs to press this). If that's not done, the insurance company can make the defence that the insured gave tacit/implicit permission for the perp to drive the car. Here's a tip: if you allow your keys to be gotten by the perp, you're going to have to go some to demonstrate that you even tried to prevent anyone from driving the car. For example, if you come home and automatically take your car keys and hang them on a hook by the front door, and someone in the home takes the keys and drives, even though you have forbidden them to, you could well be SOL. In such a case, I imagine a good lawyer can be a very welcome friend! -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Bernard farquart wrote: > "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 Interesting. I need to find out if anyone in Texas will do the same. I don't think so though. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote: > 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? How is that different than me wrecking my first car, and then buying and driving a new car? Or me getting a rental car? I don't have to pay 2 insurance policies in either of those cases. Or if I drive my neighbors car. Liablility should be on the person, and collision should be on the 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. In no case can I drive both at the same time. So I am only driving one car at a time exclusively, so there is no need for a second liability. And in no case is the insurance company out any more money. Can you give me an example of how the insurance agency would be out more? What if I had a 100 cars. Are my odds of getting into a wreck any higher than if I had 1? No. So there shouldn't be an increase in my liability. > > > >> >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" |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: > Big Bill wrote: > > 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? > > How is that different than me wrecking my first car, and then buying > and driving a new car? Or me getting a rental car? You have to insure your new car before you can drive it. > I don't have to pay > 2 insurance policies in either of those cases. Yes you do. Even if the rental car company insures the car, you are paying for it (indirectly). > Or if I drive my > neighbors car. Hopefully you neighbor insures his/her car. > Liablility should be on the person, and collision should > be on the car. Why? > > > > > 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. > > In no case can I drive both at the same time. So I am only driving one > car at a time exclusively, so there is no need for a second liability. > And in no case is the insurance company out any more money. Can you > give me an example of how the insurance agency would be out more? > > What if I had a 100 cars. Are my odds of getting into a wreck any > higher than if I had 1? Actually yes. > No. So there shouldn't be an increase in my > liability. > > > > > > >> >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" |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
> 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 |
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 |