4 ms·

I think you mean collision coverage. Comprehensive covers non-collision accidents like theft or a tree falling on your car and is generally cheaper than full co

I think you mean collision coverage. Comprehensive covers non-collision accidents like theft or a tree falling on your car and is generally cheaper than full coverage which includes collision. It seems like you may have been screwed over, but also don’t completely understand how auto insurance works in most places which might be partly intentional for the industry. In most places damages to your vehicle are covered by your own insurance. You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount which is why you need to have insurance yourself. Yea, it’s backwards and effectively forces you to have more insurance than you might otherwise want or need.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount Well, you are generally (AFAIK, this is true of all US jurisdictions) legally entitled to your full actual damages if the other driver is completely responsible, but they are only required to carry a certain amount of liability insurance (or, alternatively in many cases, bond); beyond that, you are stuck collecting from them individually after securing a judgement, which may be impractical if they simply don't have the assets.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  This is incorrect in some states. Some have limits for medical liability and some have limits for property damage liability. Michigan for example. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_679993_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_6799... Beyond that, you should insure yourself sufficiently because you can’t depend on others to have adequate coverage. Doesn’t matter that you can sue if they have no money.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

> You can sue the other driver and their insurance will cover them if necessary, but generally you’re only able to be reimbursed up to a certain amount Well, you are generally (AFAIK, this is true of all US jurisdictions) legally entitled to your full actual damages if the other driver is completely responsible, but they are only required to carry a certain amount of liability insurance (or, alternatively in many cases, bond); beyond that, you are stuck collecting from them individually after securing a judgement, which may be impractical if they simply don't have the assets.

alphabettsy 5y ago
This is incorrect in some states. Some have limits for medical liability and some have limits for property damage liability. Michigan for example. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_679993_7.pdf https://www.michigan.gov/documents/autoinsurance/ip206a_6799... Beyond that, you should insure yourself sufficiently because you can’t depend on others to have adequate coverage. Doesn’t matter that you can sue if they have no money.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]