3 ms·

Indeed. I have full coverage with Geico, as well as uninsured motorist coverage, damage etc. Well the other night some asshole decided to pac-man all the cones

Indeed. I have full coverage with Geico, as well as uninsured motorist coverage, damage etc. Well the other night some asshole decided to pac-man all the cones on the highway late at night so we had to navigate a field of almost impossible to see cones (the borders are black and there were no lights up). Several cars, including mine ended up running over a few. I got lucky as it just messed up my paint a bit on the front bumper and I lost a license plate. Two other vehicles crashed over it, really sucked. Called Geico when I got home and was informed I don't have collision coverage. They told me for this I would have needed comprehensive coverage and collision coverage. Well joke's on them, my renewal is this month and I'm bouncing. I'd rather find another company that won't weasel out on me. When I signed up I said I wanted to be covered no matter what. I pay enough monthly I should be. Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should. It ends up being a tax we pay to still have to pay out of pocket no matter what.

kube-system 5y ago
Yikes. That’s an unfortunate but sadly common mistake. Terms like “full coverage” don’t really have any real meaning, despite people repeating the made-up term. I am fairly certain that it would be illegal for an agent to sell that to you without clarifying. Funny enough, one of the first articles to pop up in a search for this is from Geico: https://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/full-coverage/ https://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/full-c...
Marsymars 5y ago
> Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should. What's your alternative to mandatory liability insurance, given that there are drivers with much greater liability risk than others?
- effingwewt 5y ago
  Not sure maybe we all just pay a tax to cover the damage...exactly like insurance is supppsed to be, but more like a co-op so it's just us, no C-Suite asshats stealing 99% of the money for themselves. Insurance on paper sounds good, it's the ever-greedier businesses that eff it all up. As another reply to me mentioned, 'full-coverage' should be just that. The US allows so much lies I believe nothing, our gov't lies ,ads lie, politicians lie,police lie,lawyers...well
  - Marsymars 5y ago
    That doesn't pass the smell test for me - with a co-op, incentives are aligned for everyone. With liability that's covered by society, you create incentives that are directly opposed - e.g. you can drive a giant SUV that's more deadly to other drivers and pedestrians - and without mandatory insurance, you're getting the benefits of driving a tank-like vehicle while offloading all the costs and risks onto others. You'd also need some new framework for dealing with high-risk drivers - e.g. instead of increasing the insurance cost for someone with a DUI conviction, you'd need to simply take away their ability to drive. There also exist numerous jurisdictions with publicly provided insurance, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_Briti...
hellbannedguy 5y ago
We shouid start giving age, area code, points on license, and price per year for auto insurance. I have a feeling the rats are collaborating on price.

kube-system 5y ago

Yikes. That’s an unfortunate but sadly common mistake. Terms like “full coverage” don’t really have any real meaning, despite people repeating the made-up term. I am fairly certain that it would be illegal for an agent to sell that to you without clarifying. Funny enough, one of the first articles to pop up in a search for this is from Geico: https://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/full-coverage/ https://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/full-c...

Marsymars 5y ago

> Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should. What's your alternative to mandatory liability insurance, given that there are drivers with much greater liability risk than others?

effingwewt 5y ago
Not sure maybe we all just pay a tax to cover the damage...exactly like insurance is supppsed to be, but more like a co-op so it's just us, no C-Suite asshats stealing 99% of the money for themselves. Insurance on paper sounds good, it's the ever-greedier businesses that eff it all up. As another reply to me mentioned, 'full-coverage' should be just that. The US allows so much lies I believe nothing, our gov't lies ,ads lie, politicians lie,police lie,lawyers...well
- Marsymars 5y ago
  That doesn't pass the smell test for me - with a co-op, incentives are aligned for everyone. With liability that's covered by society, you create incentives that are directly opposed - e.g. you can drive a giant SUV that's more deadly to other drivers and pedestrians - and without mandatory insurance, you're getting the benefits of driving a tank-like vehicle while offloading all the costs and risks onto others. You'd also need some new framework for dealing with high-risk drivers - e.g. instead of increasing the insurance cost for someone with a DUI conviction, you'd need to simply take away their ability to drive. There also exist numerous jurisdictions with publicly provided insurance, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_Briti...

hellbannedguy 5y ago

We shouid start giving age, area code, points on license, and price per year for auto insurance. I have a feeling the rats are collaborating on price.