3 ms·
There’s a reasonable chance that you’ll strike a building or multiple newish cars in a collision for which you’re liable. I carry quite high liability limits,
by sokoloff 3y ago
There’s a reasonable chance that you’ll strike a building or multiple newish cars in a collision for which you’re liable.
I carry quite high liability limits, despite being anti-insurance for all small matters. That supplemental property damage liability coverage costs less than $350/yr.
If I damage your property in a collision that’s my fault, I want to make you whole, regardless of whether you were in a 1982 Chevette or a 2023 Ferrari.
- feintruled 3y agoI do get that, but it seems like an inversion somehow. MY desire for expensive goods puts YOU at greater risk. It is however true in real terms you get a lot of extra cover for comparatively little.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> If I damage your property in a collision that’s my fault, I want to make you whole, regardless of whether you were in a 1982 Chevette or a 2023 Ferrari. Want is fine, but if said 2023 Ferrari is ferrying the Mona Lisa in its trunk, would you really feel like your fault is worth a billion dollars? There's a certain amount of responsibility for placing a very expensive asset in a scenario where accidents regularly occur; if you drive a supercar, you should probably hold insurance that'll cover excess damage over the typical policy limits for someone who might hit you.
- sokoloff 3y agoI assume most people driving >$100K cars on public roads do carry uninsured/underinsured insurance. If they don't, I agree, that's on them, but the legal system still (correctly) assigns liability to the at-fault driver in most states and the not-at-fault insurance coverage is a cashflow/coverage insurance who then turns around and gets a judgement against the at-fault driver, which may or may not ever be paid.