PontiacBonnevilleClub.com

When do you take collision and comprehensive off your car?
When you can afford to replace it or rather that it is worth so low you could replace it?

What do you guys have do you still have collision and comprehensive on your older cars
I was kinda thinkin if its less then $3000 you wouldnt needed IDK

In general, I go by the "10% rule"; when the added yearly cost of the comprehensive is more than 10% of the value of the car.

My rule is as follows...

When three years of premiums equal the value of the car, I don't carry full coverage any more. Our GS and Sonoma have never had full coverage.

All insurance is risk vs. reward. I've never needed my life insurance, my homeowner's insurance or my car insurance. Aside from the fact the law forces you to have some of this stuff, I've been throwing money away for decades, money that could have gone to my retirement fund or the girls' college fund.
You need to decide whether the amount of cash you are going get vs. the likelyhood you will need to collect vs. how much you are paying for it. Unfortuantely, in general, the younger you are the more it costs you because the more likely you are to need to collect and the more likely you are to have a more expensive car because that's where your priorities are right now and the more likely you are to have no savings at this point in life.
You need to weight your risks. No two situations are the same at all, no rule of thumb can apply to everyone. Just my thoughts.

We have full coverage on my car, since I'm a careless teenager, and my dad pays for it, so I don't really care.

i wouldnt have full coverage unless i was driving a really new car, or a really nice older car. either the "10%" rule or the "3 year" rule listed above are good guidelines, IMO.

I quit putting collison on my 2000 about a year ago. Its just not worth it.

I don't have any comprehensive or collision on my car.

My liability premium is higher than the car's worth as it is... :sad5:

harofreak00 wrote:I quit putting collison on my 2000 about a year ago. Its just not worth it.

I'm glad I had collision on mine!!! My rates never went up, either!

Just liability for me, but then again I've never owned a car newer than 15 years at any given time. However, if I had a new car then I'd go full coverage until the car's value has decreased the point of the insurance costing more than the car is worth.

All of my cars are full coverage... For me it doesn't cost much more to have it.. I really wasn't saving enough every month to justify not having full coverage.. Then to top it off its a Multi car household... For the savings I would have gotten it wasn't worth it so I kept the full coverage..

Well, I have to have both per CT law...especially since it's financed. But I'd have both anyway since it's a newer car. It has worked out well since that tree limb fell on it.

If I had my 94 still I wouldn't keep collision...though an accident can happen any time, I drive pretty safe and would take the risk to save money...since I'm wasting so much money on insurance as it is.

Jr's3800 wrote:All of my cars are full coverage... For me it doesn't cost much more to have it.. I really wasn't saving enough every month to justify not having full coverage.. Then to top it off its a Multi car household... For the savings I would have gotten it wasn't worth it so I kept the full coverage..

The best perk of being a Senior Citizen LOL j/k

Please don't ban me lol

I usually drop full coverage when the car is worth 5k or less.

ROFL, if you consider a 33 Y/O a Senior citizen??

I've never carried full coverage, I carry state minimum + theft on both the Blazer and the Bonneville, I can't see paying a ton of money for "just in case" incidents. I thave theft because I've had several vehicles broken into over the years and with Theft i'm at least covered to repair the vehicle and replace the stolen items.