I am thinking about my own, who will all have to pay for their children.
Auto ins just doubled!
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2022
- Messages
- 5,931
Long story for another day, but when I was 20 I got into a fist fight delivering pizza. College student tried to take my pie without paying. 2 years later I was being sued for $2 mil. My dad told me you don't have 2 mil. so if you didn't do anything wrong don't worry, if you did they'll just take your future wages, so worry. Thanks dad. Anyway I never heard from anyone again after giving a deposition but I know that guy got a lot of money. looked him up on linkedin and he's a CEO of a co today. figures
Can't help but notice three traditional vehicles, two fun vehicles, and a tractor in your signature block. For just two drivers? Perhaps you should trim the fleet a bit if you can't come up with a grand. Insurance is like any other cost of ownership...when the costs get too high you have to make adjustments.
Quite frankly, many people I know who carp about insurance prices are driving way too much car for their specific situations, and here in TX they are often forced to insure with one of the fly-by-night companies with bare minimum coverage. Not good.
My wife and I are also in our early 50s. We enjoy driving and maintaining our old cars and only carry full coverage on one of them with pretty high liability coverage across the board. My '86 Daytona daily driver costs $97.00 every six months; the Caravan is about $150.00 per six months. Only the 2008 Charger breaks the $200.00 barrier.
What a person chooses to drive matters a lot.
I call my local insurance broker every 3 years to have them look for cheaper insurance I'm not loyal to any insurance company and they always find it cheaper for me. My insurance hasn't really been much more expensive with this approach.
The grocery store was taking losses on corn so the price of cars has to go up to make up the difference.
Thats end stage monopoly bs, remove even the basic human right to opt out and not participate
Last edited:
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
I know everyone's experience is going to vary, but I've never had luck doing this. A lower rate for me always required an entirely new broker or agent. I guess the fact of the matter always boils down to shopping around. Problem is, what I fear in the future is these problem prone areas aren't going to have much of a choice in shopping around. Then what... Move next to me? Hey get off my lawn! LOL
JHZR2
Staff member
Your comments reflect the idiocy of how the auto insurance industry prices policies per vehicle.
I agree 100% on not being over extended or owning more car than you can afford/should own.
That said, the fact that OP may have more cars than drivers is the problem with insurance. Two drivers can only drive two cars at one time. Max.
So if they have three traditional vehicles, with two drivers, they’re probably charged like it’s 2.9 cars on the drive (between two household drivers) at any time. It’s a ripoff. The small discount for “multi car” is a sham. It’s absurd. The “yeah but what if someone borrows the car” is also absurd. Insurance should be a requirement for licensure. Not registering a car. It should be with the driver. Period. The rest is just an attempt to ripoff the public. OP can’t drive more than two cars at a time. If someone is driving without covering their liability to society, then licensure is revoked, jail is automatic.
The reason why you pay $97 for your Daytona is likely because you have it on a collectible policy with strong limitations on use. I have ten cars on a collectible policy. All have commuting riders and allow me to have some decent miles per year. But all of them combined cost less than one daily driver because I have to have a separate policy for an actual daily use car, and the collector cars need to be stored a certain way to limit risk exposure.
Insurance on daily drivers is a scam. They dont actually price it for the scenario in the household. The delta is a pure profit center. Standardized (high) liability coverage as a requirement for licensure should be the requirement to be on the road. Non-discriminatory base rate, which adjusts based upon driving record. If you want comprehensive, ok that’s per car and where/how they’re stored, just like my collector policy. Collision? Since one driver can only drive one car, the coverage should be based upon the value of your most valuable vehicle, to reflect worst case risk exposure.
Uninsured? Throw them into jail to work off the debt due to bad decisions.
Don’t own a car? Still have liability for when. Risk exposure is lower then. And liability requirements should still be high.
Take all c-suite pay, bonuses, profit, and dividends out of the industry, if it’s going to be required by law. There is no efficiency in any of it.
Last edited:
Agreed, but I think most of the losses in California were from events in coastal areas. I believe @Chris142 is well inland, in desert country with sparse vegetation, so removed from brush fires, torrential rain, and earthquakes. It seems unfair to penalize the residents of relatively safe parts of a big state.
Exactly! In a nutshell, if THIS, then not THAT, but not both.
There's a controversial new economics book out, called Abundance, which I think tries to debunk this old economic truth.
I haven't read it yet, but have read a scathing review.
The cop gave us the option to press charges or not.
Insurance is part of our market economy, with regulations.
Winners and losers...
Winners and losers...
Yep. Officers and the courts have a lot to do.
Well, y'all are making me feel better about the mandatory public insurance back home.
I pay C$8xx annually for our 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan (preferred), and ours sons' vehicles (2009 Kia Sedona and 2009 Mazda5) run around C$12xx annually (all-purpose).
I pay C$8xx annually for our 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan (preferred), and ours sons' vehicles (2009 Kia Sedona and 2009 Mazda5) run around C$12xx annually (all-purpose).
The wildfires will be the tragedy that just keeps on sticking it to California drivers.
JHZR2
Staff member
How exactly do losses from fires relate to the cost of liability insurance for damage. Different pots of funds.
I’d understand perhaps if comprehensive rates went way up due to cars being burned up and total losses.
That said, insurance pools all risks. So people inland do pay for losses at the coast, or vice-versa. But OP is talking about car insurance, not property insurance. To increase liability rates due to building losses is crazy.
It's not the Cops fault. In most places the county attorneys will do nothing
It's like $10 cheaper with my insurance. I don't bother.
Allstate is the absolute WORST there is. No two ways about it. The only way they pay up in auto accident cases is if there's a court order mandating they do so. Even then they might appeal.
Nope, just a regular ol' car on my Allstate policy. Liability only with no limitations.
That said, your points are very rational and well-reasoned. Especially the idea of debtors' jail and public service for the uninsured.
Similar threads
