Quote:
|
Originally Posted by braisler
Jazz, I'm not an insurance professional, but isn't suggesting $100K/$300K insurance to a college student a bit much? Maybe if the car and/or policy is still linked to his parents, then there might be more to 'go after' if the worst happens, but if the OP has fewer assets that $100K, I don't see the reason for a higher premium than he needs to pay.
Your other comment about someone borrowing your car and banging it up hits on a recent auto commercial I have seen that implies the opposite. I don't recall the company that was offering it, maybe Allstate, but the commercial implies the opposite and basically claims the idea of being covered no matter who you loan your car to as a totally new idea and exclusive to them. What a crock! Does that approach false advertising?
|
The easy question first - I constantly laugh at the Allstate adds. Some of them are good (the courtroom one), but the one that you mentioned is a classic in terms of misdirection. Unfortunately, I think that I didn't do a good enough job explaining exactly how Personal Auto works. Basically, there are two issues here - scheduled drivers and scheduled autos. They work in tandem when it comes to claims. If you drive your car, the distinction never becomes an issue. If you borrow someone else's car (or rent one), it becomes more important. First, in the case we're talking about
thelifeandtimes should be a scheduled driver on his mother's policy already so this distinction is a moot point. However, if someone steals your car, you're not liable for damages to others caused by that driver. If someone borrows it with permission, typically both their policy and your policy contribute to the loss, depending on the actual circumstance. What Allstate has done, technically, is transform their policies, which used to be written as Symbol 7 (scheduled autos, scheduled drivers) and changed it to Symbol 1 (all autos, all drivers). Really, they haven't done anything all that groundbreaking from what I can tell (without having read their policy wording).
The limits question is a little more touchy, and I understand where you're coming from. However, my recommendation isn't based on 19 year-old today but the person in the future. The statutory limits were set in the mid 80's in most states and haven't been updated since (it's the same on the commercial side too, btw). That means that in 1985, the state thought that $20,000 was enough to pay a person injured in an auto accident. In today's dollars that should be about $30,000, but in real dollars (which includes healthcare costs that have risen faster than inflation), it's closer to $50,000. As I said, I think everyone should have a $1M limit, but I also know that's not necessarily afforable for everyone. Think of a bad accident with injuries and think of the medical bills from the injured parties. Even if the OP has less than $100k in assets, a judge could chose to garnish his wages until the claimant is paid off for his injuries (assuming a bad at-fault accident). With this high of a limit, you not only protect your current assets but your future ones as well.
And by the way, everyone should always buy Medical Payments coverage and Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists coverage. Both of these protect you if you're hit by someone else. If you can't afford them, that's fine, but it's my professional recommendation that you buy the coverage.