In a society of “good enough” and “that’ll do” it is often difficult for drivers to determine whether or not they should carry complete coverage on their auto insurance. After all, do they really want to pay thousands of dollars in premiums on the off chance that their car or truck will sustain damages that are too expensive for them to pay for? Or would it be better for them to simply assume the risk themselves?
There are a number of arguments both for and against having complete coverage on a vehicle. The bottom line is that the amount of auto insurance a driver needs should be determined by their individual circumstances.
The argument for complete coverage is obvious. Although the cost of repairing a vehicle following an accident for which the driver in question is not responsible will be assumed by the other driver’s auto insurance company, they are going to be left holding the bag if the accident was their fault. This means that if their car is totaled (meaning that the cost of the repairs is greater than the estimated value of the car) they’re going to be left with no vehicle and no assistance to help them purchase another one. If they had complete coverage, this expense would be assumed by their collision insurance.
Read the Full Story on Controversy Over Complete Auto Insurance Coverage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment