Looking for some opinions.
Would you keep full coverage, comp + collision or switch to liability only? Car is a 2013 C250 with 150k miles. I’m paying about $380/year for comp + collision. I don’t need rental coverage since I have a backup car

 

Fiscally, no. Just go with liability, unless you have loads of expensive equipment, then you keep the comp. The equipment/mods should be listed on the rider (or not), but you will also need to keep receipts.

I personally go with just liability if the car is more than 5 years old, unless it’s a specialized vehicle.

 

I’m confused. You own a Mercedes and you are quibbling over about $30 per month? A rock to the windshield will cost more than $380 if you have no insurance coverage. A deer will likely total the car or your pocket book.

 

I took a rock to the windshield recently, $14.99 at Advance Auto and an hour of my time.

Everyone’s situation is different.

 

So is everyone’s tolerance to unforeseen events (accidents). $380 to cover a car worth $7000 would be about a 5½% risk. Your insurance company has statistics to back up their loss history. You have that one car and your bank account. It’s the same logic as going to the casino or buying a lottery ticket. You’re betting, they’re running a business.

 

Appreciate the feedback. I wasn’t really hung up on the $30/month.
I just wanted to hear how people think about keeping or dropping coverage on older cars.

 

I have a 26 year old truck and a 22 year old Audi TT, and have full coverage on both. The truck costs about $15 per month and the TT costs about $30 per month. Of course, I have my other two cars and all other insurances with the same company. For me $45/month or about $1.50 a day for the peace of mind is a no brainer.

 

We have three cars in the household and recently added a 4th one, brand new VW Atlas. I’ve been checking and trying to find the right balance in coverage for all 4 cars. While saving $10–$20 here and there isn’t significant on its own, I prefer to weigh the pros and cons. I could certainly keep full coverage on this car indefinitely, but like most people, I also look for reasonable opportunities to save where it makes sense

 

Thirty plus years ago I had an old Mitsubishi with over 240,000 miles. I thought I would save some money and canceled the collision insurance. A few weeks later, of course, someone stopped in front of me on the highway. Normal behavior in New Mexico. Wrecked the car, got $75 from the junk yard. Saving some money cost me a couple of thousand.

 

When I was younger and reckless I had "full coverage' which came in handy after totaling two cars, insurance issued me a check and i went out and bought another car with that money. Now im older and like too think i drive normal, my driving record is clean, drive the speed limits, dont take risks like weaving in and out of traffic, on the highway i do drive in the left lane but I leave plenty of room with the car in front in case they slam on the brakes.

I dont like the mentality that since I have a Mercedes I shouldnt be cheap. I bought it because I really like the looks of it and its a quality vehicle, drives great. I got a very good deal on it. If I wasnt so handy and able to work on it myself there is no way I would own one since I really only trust the MB dealer to work on it and that would get very expensive quick.

Your past driving history is a good indicator of what type of insurance you should have, In my opinion. But keep in mind if you let others drive your car then i'd have full coverage. But only I drive my car and if it were to be swept away in a tornado tomorrow I would be able to go out and buy another comparable car no problem because I am cheap and squirrel my money away. I dont foresee a tornado anytime soon in my area.

Quick example. When I was about to replace a leaking oil filter housing gasket in the car I started putting a bunch of parts in my shopping cart online, figuring while I was working on it I may as well replace everything associated with it like radiator hose, thermostat, bunch of other stuff thinking "while im in there". The parts added up to a few hundred dollars so I said nevermind and just get the filter housing gaskets, new gasket for the thermostat and two jugs of coolant. Came out to around $50. I did that repair a few years ago, thermostat is still fine, hoses are still fine. The timing actually worked out great since the car had just hit 150,000 miles and was due for new coolant anyways.

Did something similar when one of the springs broke on a front strut. I inspected the struts as well as the rear shocks and springs and they were all rusted and corroded. I searched for awhile and was able to find used Mercedes replacement parts all with around 40,000 miles on them from a salvage car. For everything I spent less than the cost of one brand new Mercedes front strut. I figure by the time I need to replace any of those parts again I may not even have the car still.

But as always do whatever you are comfortable with.

 

The answer is - what other things do you own? A home? A business? A bank account? Something that someone could sue for if you have an "At fault" accident? A smart person is not worried about the car as much as their quality of life and life plans. I promise you if this car is a beater and your daily driver is a Bugatti - you do NOT want to get into an accident because the lawyers will be swimming like you are prey.

 

If you own anything, or even have a job, you’re prey. We bristle nightly at the adds by “The Hammer” who will “get you what you deserve.” The OP wants to keep liability coverage which would hold off the law sharks, but drop the stuff that covers the car, i.e., comprehensive and collision coverage. That said, the state’s required minimum liability is far too low if you own any of those things. And an umbrella policy on top of liability isn’t a bad idea, either.

 

I carry liability well above my state's minimum, as well as an umbrella policy that covers home and auto (excluding firearms). (All the lawyer TV ads are for personal injury, you know.) If you lease or finance, obviously you must have collision coverage that indemnifies the financier. I don't carry collision (I own all my cars), as I'm not an aggressive driver and I don't see the logic of insuring myself against my own recklessness. My greatest fear is under-insured motorists. A guy on the BMW forum driving a $165K XB7 Alpina got sideswiped by a motorist with a mere $25K property damage coverage. He was too honest to fake whiplash. The last accident I had was when I was stopped at a red light and got rear-ended by an illegal who had no license, no insurance, no English fluency, but just enough money to skip town to avoid paying damages and his reckless driving citation. Left me with the entire repair bill.

 

A couple of things….

1. What if that deer or other animal hits you when driving at night? Or that object that fell off the truck in front of you? Or the tree across the road after a heavy rain? None of those things have anything to do with your recklessness and any of them can total your car. (That is why ALL of my cars have dash cams.)

2. How do you know the other driver will always be found to be 100% responsible in a collision? What about when you are stopped and get rear-ended and pushed into the car ahead of you or into the intersection? “Why didn’t you have your foot firmly on the brake?” asks the other party’s lawyer?

Laws vary from state to state. Make sure you understand the laws in your state. You may live somewhere where fault is attributed based on a percentage. I once lived somewhere where simply driving on a public road meant that you assumed some amount of liability in an accident. That also meant the other party would not cover 100% of your repairs.

And, if you take the other party to court and there is a jury trial, there is NEVER a guarantee that the jury will decide in your favor.

 

1. Deer are a constant threat in the area where I live. A young neighbor woman had 3 deer collisions within the past year, totaling her car in 2 of them. How do I avoid this? I avoid driving at night (I can't remember when I last had to drive in the dark), and I maintain constant vigilance expecting that the critters will appear out of nowhere. They absolutely do, and I'm driving defensively, constantly scanning side-to-side. I also drive below the posted speed limit, and at a speed at which I can stop within the distance of my headlights. This pisses off the people behind me, who aggressively pass me and do the deer collisions for me. Despite the road-kill that litters the highway, most people still don't get it. A couple years ago, I witnessed an SUV that hit a deer strolling across the highway during the daytime entirely because the driver wasn't watching the road. People like that scare me as much as the deer do. So I should carry collision insurance so that I can attend to more pressing matters than driving? All of your points have to do with driving inattentively and at a speed at which you can't stop within your viewing distance. I'm always amused by the multi-car pileups that occur when visibility drops to 10 feet due to snow, fog or dust, but people continue driving at the posted speed limit. At 60mph, you're moving at 88 feet/second. So it's OK to keep moving that fast when you can't see much beyond your front bumper? It's obvious that most drivers today are inspired by NASCAR and they think if tailgating is OK at 200mph, 80mph certainly isn't a problem.

2. Your point #2 is not a collision issue, but a liability issue. As I said, I carry coverage well above the minimum as well as an umbrella policy. If a lawyer wants to pursue property and/or injury claims, he/she can fight my insurer, not me. A friend of mine did get pushed into a car by another driver. Having your foot on the brake so that you can experience maximum impact and protect others is not required by law, and doesn't make you liable -- the driver who hit you is entirely at fault for all the consequences. However, I don't dismiss the possibility that a lawyer would attempt to argue such if the guy who caused the pileup was uninsured.

 

I wasn’t clear regarding my above point #2. Yes, it is mostly a liability issue. But, if you expect the other party to replace your vehicle, you may have to sue for it.

And I agree about people being reckless, especially at night, though they are happy to be reckless during the day. I was just pointing out that crap happens, no matter how careful you are. Years ago (and I mean YEARS AGO — 20 or so), I was driving home around twilight one night and driving cautiously, below the speed limit. But one of those suckers decided to break from a copse of trees and commit seppuku with the fender of my car.

Like you, I rarely drive at night. Partly because I can’t see as well with many of the new LED headlights, and partly because I have nowhere to go.

Getting back to the OP’s question, I don’t think it is either/or. If someone is trying to save money, they can always carry a high deductible on collision and comprehensive and still have some coverage against a total loss.

 

Your points about cautious driving and speeds appropriate for the conditions are completely accurate. But not driving at night, or even in less than perfect conditions are not realistic for many.

My wife drives our main multi-passenger transport. Her trips begin as early as 4:30 AM and end as late as 8:30 PM. Has she had unfortunate encounters with wildlife? Yes. Has she ever been injured? Yes. Has she ever injured a passenger? No. Does she have a mileage based accident rate worse than the median driver? No.

 

I was mainly asking whether it makes sense to drop collision and comprehensive coverage given the age and value of the cars.
I do carry liability above the state minimum. Out of our four cars, the 2019 and 2025 are fully covered. I was considering keeping liability only on the 2013 Benz and the 2007 Sienna.

For smaller things like a windshield, I’m fine paying out of pocket. We regularly drive two of the cars. A third belongs to my daughter (she lives out of state and uses it when visiting), and that one has full coverage. We also recently bought a 2025 Atlas, which is fully covered as well.
After reading everyone’s input, I’m rethinking that decision. The 2 cars we drive the most are the older ones I was thinking of dropping coverage except the liability, bad thinking.

I was just looking to see if there’s a smart way to save on insurance. And no, I’m not selling any, I like my cars

 

As I stated above, you could increase the amount of your deductible to save some money without being fully exposed, but I never found the difference was worth it.

 

$380 a year for comp and collision? That’s a steal! We have a 2013 C250 and a 2015 V6 Accord, and in CA we were paying over $830 every six months for both cars with comprehensive and collisionuntil I switched to pay-per-mile insurance two years ago. I felt a bit uneasy at first, but we’ve never had any insurance claims on record. Both cars have under 35k miles and spend most of their time parked in the garage. This year, our base rate went up to $28/month per car + $0.055 for each mile driven.
I'm not making a suggestion or recommendation. Just thought I'd share.

 

Interesting. What are your deductibles? I need to research whether pay-per-mile is available in my state.

 

Deductible is $500.00 with 50000/100000.
I went back to full on all 4 cars and it's $419.00

 

Just my opinion, but 50K/100K is inadequate in today's world of skyrocketing healthcare costs. I carry 500K/1M injury liability and 100K property liability, plus a 5M umbrella policy. All the personal injury lawyers flooding the airwaves with endless TV commercials are making big money from auto accidents.