Liability Insurance? Who has it?

[barrypt5]

So i called my insurance provider today (USAA) and asked if there is any way to lower my premium...they said if i went to liability only on the '97 LX-450 i would save $650/year!?!?! they said most vehicles over 7 years old do not justify full coverage anymore....Any thoughts from anyone??

also, i did ask if i adjusted my deductible...and if i go from a $500 to $1000 deductible i would only save $100 per year.

So......who all has liability on there 80???

barrypt5

 

[bpassmore]

I had Full coverage on my 97 LX -
Nationwide just paid me 10,600 to total it after (their estimate) 8,600 in damage. I bought it back for $3,000 and have almost completely repaired it for $500.

Get and keep Full Coverage. It is worth it.

 

[bhmmapping]

I only carry liability on mine, but it is a 92. I kept full coverage when I had my 97.

 

[94SRUNNER]

Full coverage

 

[OB-1]

I have liability only with Allstate, but sometimes wonder if I should get full coverage just in case.

 

[NLXTACY]

if you have a 95-97 get full coverage, 91-94 liability it and use the money you save to get a 95-97

 

[CJF]

if you have a 95-97 get full coverage, 91-94 liability it and use the money you save to get a 95-97

Personal choice.

Even if I bought a nice 95-97, I would carry only liability unless it had serious mods and those mods were definitely covered.

Back in '98 when I bought my '91, I calculated that carrying only liability would be worth it as long as I didn't wreck it in the first three years. I was and am fine with calculated risks like that: I've saved a lot of money by not having had comprehensive coverage for the last 11 years.
Curtis

 

[bpassmore]

Personal choice.

Even if I bought a nice 95-97, I would carry only liability unless it had serious mods and those mods were definitely covered.

Back in '98 when I bought my '91, I calculated that carrying only liability would be worth it as long as I didn't wreck it in the first three years. I was and am fine with calculated risks like that: I've saved a lot of money by not having had comprehensive coverage for the last 11 years.
Curtis

This is more than a little foolish.
Accidents will happen.

Look at the pics above. that happened at an off-road park - on a trail. It was covered.

I just netted 7000 post-repair on that wreck. Full coverage is worth it - If you can afford the monthly cost.

 

[NLXTACY]

Personal choice.

Even if I bought a nice 95-97, I would carry only liability unless it had serious mods and those mods were definitely covered.

Back in '98 when I bought my '91, I calculated that carrying only liability would be worth it as long as I didn't wreck it in the first three years. I was and am fine with calculated risks like that: I've saved a lot of money by not having had comprehensive coverage for the last 11 years.
Curtis

Ok I am the flipside of that.

On the LX we've never had an accident. I've had trucks stolen, stolen and used for a robbery and burned to the ground, cars totalled, and other cars crunched MANY times by uninsured motorists. And I have to say that over the years I made out like a bandit!!!

The LX has been the first vehicle we have never actually needed insurance for and I've paid out a LOT for it. Almost have the original purchase price by now.

That being said I am glad I have it and I am glad that I can call up my insurance agent and notify them of the mods I have added and know they will be covered...at least up to a point.

 

[lowenbrau]

There are only two perils that worry me with respect to my fleet. Hitting a deer and having a rig stolen. Both are real possibilities but I can only get that coverage on two of the four. The insurance company wants annual appraisals and a $5000 deductible for the JDMs so I don't bother. Losing a rig to collision isn't too worrying to me. I don't have accidents often and I don't have rigs that are worth obscene amounts of cash to replace. My BJ74 is most valuable and is a $10k rig with $15K of accessories. Highly unlikely they'd cover them anyway.

I pay just under $600cdn a piece/ yr for liability only.

 

[CJF]

Ok I am the flipside of that.

I've had trucks stolen, stolen and used for a robbery and burned to the ground, cars totalled, and other cars crunched MANY times by uninsured motorists. And I have to say that over the years I made out like a bandit!!!

There ya go: personal decision completely dependent on one's situation.

More about me : Never paid more than $8K for a vehicle, never had a vehicle wrecked (more than a fender bender) or stolen, never had comp. coverage on any vehicle.

 

[NLXTACY]

I wish I had that luck. Bought my LX and 4Runner new. Leased all of my Audi's. Bought my 40 and 60 used, each for $1200. Both my 240SX's were used but under a year old and my Toy pup was $2500 that I bought from my boss when I was 18. I think where you live also plays an important part of the decision.

I'm in LA so I am surrounded by drunk drivers, uninsured motorists, car thieves and just plain ole assholes.

 

[retrofive]

I pay full on mine, but have to until paid off. I dont feel like I pay much anyway.

I can hear both sides of the story. LA vs Oregon big difference in driving environments. Heck I know I lot of people that just leave the keys in ignition to this day.

Like Bpassmore, there is all ways the possibility.

 

[CreeperSleeper]

I would really hope that everybody has liability coverage as that is what the state requires... I also have comp and collision (which is what most people call "full coverage" even though it isn't".

 

[CJF]

This is more than a little foolish.
Accidents will happen.

Look at the pics above. that happened at an off-road park - on a trail. It was covered.

I just netted 7000 post-repair on that wreck. Full coverage is worth it - If you can afford the monthly cost.

Absolutely not foolish. Just a calculated risk.

I'm in a situation where I can afford comp. coverage if I choose, but I'm also in a situation where if one of my vehicles was totalled or stolen it wouldn't be a serious financial hardship. (I'd obviously be pretty bummed, though.)

I'm comfortable "gambling" that I won't wreck one of my vehicles more often than, say, once every ten years. Given that, it honestly would be foolish and a huge long-term waste of money to have comp. coverage on any of them.

Keep in mind I'm ONLY considering vehicles that are paid off (I've never had a car loan) and that are worth no more than about $10K or so.

Curtis

 

[Atoyot1031]

I'm in LA so I am surrounded by drunk drivers, uninsured motorists, car thieves and just plain ole assholes.

ROR!

I'm more like you. My wife totaled my old 80, which paid off the balance of the loan and then some.

My "new" 80 is fully insured with a letter from USAA stating that they will cover the full value of the vehicle including mods (>$20,000 total).

In the business I'm in, I've seen people lose their asses on the uninsured gamble. As a result, I'm overinsured in every way I can think of.

Somewhat humorous insurance story:

I killed an elk several years ago. I took it to a meat processor whose processing plant/shop burnt down (along with my elk) two days later. He wanted to pay me the price of my license (~$40) since he was by his own admission "grossly underinsured". I told him that was most unfortunate, but he owes me full replacement value of the elk, not the license (as I had filled the license). We went back and forth for sometime about the price of domestic elk, etc. The end result was he went out, shot an elk, and delivered it to another processor for me.

Moral of the story: Being underinsured is a gamble, when you lose you still have to pay up (sucka).

Lastly, in the words of Homer J. Simpson: "Insurance is the greatest deal ever. If I get hurt, I get paid, and man do I get hurt..."

 

[arndog123]

I have full coverage on both Cruisers and liability on my '85 XtraCab and Integra.

 

[nicholas]

Absolutely not foolish. Just a calculated risk.

I'm in a situation where I can afford comp. coverage if I choose, but I'm also in a situation where if one of my vehicles was totalled or stolen it wouldn't be a serious financial hardship. (I'd obviously be pretty bummed, though.)

I'm comfortable "gambling" that I won't wreck one of my vehicles more often than, say, once every ten years. Given that, it honestly would be foolish and a huge long-term waste of money to have comp. coverage on any of them.

Keep in mind I'm ONLY considering vehicles that are paid off (I've never had a car loan) and that are worth no more than about $10K or so.

Curtis

I agree.

I had full coverage 3 years ago when I bought it, then I went down to liability only for about a year so I could pay off my undergrad loan before I went to grad school. Now I have full coverage again because If it was totaled I wouldn't have the cash to buy a new one because I am an unemployed school bum.

 

[hzavarce]

In my opinion, insurance is all about risk. My cruiser is my second hand vehicle, I am the only person that ever drives it. I put less than 10k miles per year and mostly is short trips.

Therefore my risk is low. I only get liability.

I do agree that this is certainly something of personal preference, and as stated already it also has to do a lot with personal experience.

 

[NLXTACY]

Location overrules preference. Location determines risk.