8 ms·

So far, I have made use of my car insurance policy two times. Each time I regretted it. First was for a rodent that somehow got into the space between the roof

So far, I have made use of my car insurance policy two times. Each time I regretted it. First was for a rodent that somehow got into the space between the roof and the headliner, then died and made a mess. The second was for hitting a pothole at highway speed, which damaged a wheel and its control arm. In both cases, the insurance company paid the minimum they had to. For the rodent, sure they paid for the ceiling to be disassembled, fixed up, and reassembled. But did they pay for the interior detail that was necessary because of the rodent guts that had dripped from the ceiling? No, of course not. For the pothole, they paid for the wheel and control arm replacement and even one new tire. But did they help me pay for a tire on the other side so the wear could be reasonably symmetrical? No, of course not. How about the alignment I obviously got, which isn’t strictly necessary but really should be done after such an incident and installing a new drive wheel? No, of course not. Oh and they categorically consider hitting a pothole to be the driver’s fault, no matter the circumstances, so they raised the insurance premium on me. They made all of their money back within 18 months and now I’m still paying the higher rate. Insurance is such a scam. The company makes a profit despite their team of employees because they always price the premium above your level of risk. If the math made any sense for the customer, the company would break even or go bankrupt. I wouldn’t have insurance but it’s required in my state. The one good thing I can say about it is it helps ensure victims of car accidents get their medical bills paid for regardless of the financial status of the driver.

majormajor 2y ago
> I wouldn’t have insurance but it’s required in my state. Does your state require comprehensive/collision insurance? I've only lived places where you would be permitted to get liability-only insurance which would specifically not cover either of the situations you think you got screwed on. (Neither of which is why most people get insurance anyway. You get car-insurance beyond the legal minimum because while you will likely pay more in the long run, you won't have to deal with a surprise tens-of-thousands replacement bill out of nowhere if you accidentally total your car. Or because you have a loan and your lender doesn't trust you to go without it - of course, if you truly don't need insurance for something, you likely don't need a loan for it either. This is generally non-controversial and the "obviously it's a bad deal because the insurance company exists and pays salaries" hot take is... duh? well known? not an insight?)
tjohns 2y ago
Insurance is primarily for major events. The things at the extreme upper end of the bell curve. For example, you've hit another car (possibly an expensive one) and caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage. Or you've inured a passenger and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of hospital bills. The kinds of events that would financially ruin you, or at least seriously set you back on your life goals. Or, in the case of state-mandated insurance, where there's a high likelihood you wouldn't be able to make the other party whole. You can use it on smaller things if you insist (and your rates will go up), but that's not really what it's for. Personally, both the events you described fall under my definition of one-off maintenance ("things that are an unpredictable yet unavoidable cost of owning a vehicle") and that I'd expect to pay for out of pocket.
- mpreda 2y ago
  > Insurance is primarily for major events. The things at the extreme upper end of the bell curve That's how it should be, but isn't because all insurance contracts cap the maximum insured amount. So that's absolutely NOT the "extreme upper end of the bell", not at all.
  - Mathnerd314 2y ago
    There are unlimited umbrella policies, but practically past 1 million or <net worth> it is probably cheaper to declare bankruptcy than pay the additional premiums.
    - e_y_ 2y ago
      Wouldn't you rather not lose $1+ million? It costs something like $400/year per $1M coverage which is hardly breaking the bank.
      - Mathnerd314 2y ago
        $400/year is a new laptop or something, if you spend the money then the creditors can't take it.
bigthymer 2y ago
One way to solve this problem is to be part of mutual insurance instead of a private company. Not sure if that is an available option for you.
zeroonetwothree 2y ago
You can get a liability only policy.
pkulak 2y ago
> I wouldn’t have insurance but it’s required in my state. As long as you have a few million set aside in case you cause one of the 45,000 deaths, or even more injuries, that happen on US roads every year, I agree with you. But then you say exactly my point in your last paragraph… you’re all over the place here. Insurance isn’t about pot hole damage. If you use it all the time, it’s a membership fee, not insurance.
dazc 2y ago
In the UK we have multiple insurers competing fiercely on price, to the point where many lose money year on year. People still say it's a scam though because their experience when making a claim doesn't play out like they expected. I think part of the problem is the unseen costs of long-term hire cars, injury compensation and outright fraud that has become an everyday expense that someone has to pick up the tab for?
- michaelt 2y ago
  > People still say it's a scam though because their experience when making a claim doesn't play out like they expected. A friend of mine had her insured bicycle stolen. It was locked up with an extremely heavy chain and lock, which were rated 'gold' by insurance companies for locking up motorbikes. Her insurance denied the claim, because the chain wasn't gold rated for locking up bicycles. By all means get insurance - but when their marketing talks about being on your side or providing peace of mind, you gotta realise that weaselling out of paying claims is a big part of their business model.
  - infecto 2y ago
    Weasel? How do you expect it to work? There is a contract and the company is going to follow it.
    - scns 2y ago
      They have lawyers preventing customers getting paid. One of those couldn't take it any longer and switched sides.
      - infecto 2y ago
        Perhaps in your narrative. I don’t believe that to be true for the vast majority of property claims.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    Bicycle insurance is mostly useless unfortunately. We really need to do something about it if bicycles are going to be practical for more people. Cars get probably 100x the Police resource dedicated to them compared to bikes.
pipes 2y ago
In the UK damage caused by potholes can be claimed back from the local council. It's a pain in the ass but worth pursuing. I'm surprised the USA doesn't have the same. (Assuming you are in the USA!)
- infecto 2y ago
  I believe most states have some ability to do what you describe. It’s a PITA too though.
infecto 2y ago
Of course insurance companies need to make a profit. That does not mean they are scams. Hitting a pothole will almost always be either your fault or the local governments fault. Insurance companies are incentivized to make competitive quotes when possible. Your thought of not having insurance demonstrates you are not thinking about this the right way at all. Your state requires liability which will pay out claims against yourself.
globular-toast 2y ago
> Oh and they categorically consider hitting a pothole to be the driver’s fault, no matter the circumstances Because it is your fault. How can someone force you to drive into a pothole at speed? Smooth roads build complacency, but you need to be on the lookout at all times. Most drivers are disastrously bad when it comes to understanding speed. Modern cars encourage awful habits.

majormajor 2y ago

> I wouldn’t have insurance but it’s required in my state. Does your state require comprehensive/collision insurance? I've only lived places where you would be permitted to get liability-only insurance which would specifically not cover either of the situations you think you got screwed on. (Neither of which is why most people get insurance anyway. You get car-insurance beyond the legal minimum because while you will likely pay more in the long run, you won't have to deal with a surprise tens-of-thousands replacement bill out of nowhere if you accidentally total your car. Or because you have a loan and your lender doesn't trust you to go without it - of course, if you truly don't need insurance for something, you likely don't need a loan for it either. This is generally non-controversial and the "obviously it's a bad deal because the insurance company exists and pays salaries" hot take is... duh? well known? not an insight?)

tjohns 2y ago

Insurance is primarily for major events. The things at the extreme upper end of the bell curve. For example, you've hit another car (possibly an expensive one) and caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage. Or you've inured a passenger and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of hospital bills. The kinds of events that would financially ruin you, or at least seriously set you back on your life goals. Or, in the case of state-mandated insurance, where there's a high likelihood you wouldn't be able to make the other party whole. You can use it on smaller things if you insist (and your rates will go up), but that's not really what it's for. Personally, both the events you described fall under my definition of one-off maintenance ("things that are an unpredictable yet unavoidable cost of owning a vehicle") and that I'd expect to pay for out of pocket.

mpreda 2y ago
> Insurance is primarily for major events. The things at the extreme upper end of the bell curve That's how it should be, but isn't because all insurance contracts cap the maximum insured amount. So that's absolutely NOT the "extreme upper end of the bell", not at all.
- Mathnerd314 2y ago
  There are unlimited umbrella policies, but practically past 1 million or <net worth> it is probably cheaper to declare bankruptcy than pay the additional premiums.
  - e_y_ 2y ago
    Wouldn't you rather not lose $1+ million? It costs something like $400/year per $1M coverage which is hardly breaking the bank.
    - Mathnerd314 2y ago
      $400/year is a new laptop or something, if you spend the money then the creditors can't take it.

bigthymer 2y ago

One way to solve this problem is to be part of mutual insurance instead of a private company. Not sure if that is an available option for you.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago

You can get a liability only policy.

pkulak 2y ago

> I wouldn’t have insurance but it’s required in my state. As long as you have a few million set aside in case you cause one of the 45,000 deaths, or even more injuries, that happen on US roads every year, I agree with you. But then you say exactly my point in your last paragraph… you’re all over the place here. Insurance isn’t about pot hole damage. If you use it all the time, it’s a membership fee, not insurance.

dazc 2y ago

In the UK we have multiple insurers competing fiercely on price, to the point where many lose money year on year. People still say it's a scam though because their experience when making a claim doesn't play out like they expected. I think part of the problem is the unseen costs of long-term hire cars, injury compensation and outright fraud that has become an everyday expense that someone has to pick up the tab for?

michaelt 2y ago
> People still say it's a scam though because their experience when making a claim doesn't play out like they expected. A friend of mine had her insured bicycle stolen. It was locked up with an extremely heavy chain and lock, which were rated 'gold' by insurance companies for locking up motorbikes. Her insurance denied the claim, because the chain wasn't gold rated for locking up bicycles. By all means get insurance - but when their marketing talks about being on your side or providing peace of mind, you gotta realise that weaselling out of paying claims is a big part of their business model.
- infecto 2y ago
  Weasel? How do you expect it to work? There is a contract and the company is going to follow it.
  - scns 2y ago
    They have lawyers preventing customers getting paid. One of those couldn't take it any longer and switched sides.
    - infecto 2y ago
      Perhaps in your narrative. I don’t believe that to be true for the vast majority of property claims.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  Bicycle insurance is mostly useless unfortunately. We really need to do something about it if bicycles are going to be practical for more people. Cars get probably 100x the Police resource dedicated to them compared to bikes.

pipes 2y ago

In the UK damage caused by potholes can be claimed back from the local council. It's a pain in the ass but worth pursuing. I'm surprised the USA doesn't have the same. (Assuming you are in the USA!)

infecto 2y ago
I believe most states have some ability to do what you describe. It’s a PITA too though.

infecto 2y ago

Of course insurance companies need to make a profit. That does not mean they are scams. Hitting a pothole will almost always be either your fault or the local governments fault. Insurance companies are incentivized to make competitive quotes when possible. Your thought of not having insurance demonstrates you are not thinking about this the right way at all. Your state requires liability which will pay out claims against yourself.

globular-toast 2y ago

> Oh and they categorically consider hitting a pothole to be the driver’s fault, no matter the circumstances Because it is your fault. How can someone force you to drive into a pothole at speed? Smooth roads build complacency, but you need to be on the lookout at all times. Most drivers are disastrously bad when it comes to understanding speed. Modern cars encourage awful habits.