Hello,

I am asking for advice as to whether I should remove collision
coverage on my 1998 Civic DX coupe that has 156,000 miles on it. I
bought the car brand new 10 years ago.

If I remove the coverage, it would save me approximately $20/month.
Kelley Blue Book states that the trade-in value of the car would be
anywhere from $2,000 - $3,000, depending on the car's condition. I
would say that my Civic is in-between fair to good condition. It
still runs good and I have kept up with it maintenance-wise.

Thanks for your advice,
Kevin

 

its costing you about $240.00 per year for the coverage . if you have
enought money put aside, (about $ 2,500.00) to replace it and are
willing to take your chances then drop the coverage .

 

If the annual cost for collision and comprehensive insurance on your
car is more than 10% of what you'd get from your insurer, then it's
time to consider dropping them.
Say the car is worth $3,000 & your deductible is $500. Then your risk
(exposure) is $2,500. If your collision premium is $250 per year,
then the rule of thumb says to drop the collision coverage and bank
the $250 for the next car.
(see more at http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...urClunker.aspx

On May 2, 6:22 am, "Kevin G." <KevinGrave...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am asking for advice as to whether I should remove collision
> coverage on my 1998 Civic DX coupe that has 156,000 miles on it. I
> bought the car brand new 10 years ago.
>
> If I remove the coverage, it would save me approximately $20/month.
> Kelley Blue Book states that the trade-in value of the car would be
> anywhere from $2,000 - $3,000, depending on the car's condition. I
> would say that my Civic is in-between fair to good condition. It
> still runs good and I have kept up with it maintenance-wise.
>
> Thanks for your advice,
> Kevin

 

Kevin G. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am asking for advice as to whether I should remove collision
> coverage on my 1998 Civic DX coupe that has 156,000 miles on it. I
> bought the car brand new 10 years ago.
>
> If I remove the coverage, it would save me approximately $20/month.
> Kelley Blue Book states that the trade-in value of the car would be
> anywhere from $2,000 - $3,000, depending on the car's condition. I
> would say that my Civic is in-between fair to good condition. It
> still runs good and I have kept up with it maintenance-wise.
>
> Thanks for your advice,
> Kevin
>
I have a 1997 Civic EX coupe with about 75k on the odometer and I
dropped my collision and comp coverage based on how badly I was screwed
in my last car wreck. The blue book on the totaled vehicle was 26k and
my insurance company gave me close to 19k for it.

When my agent tried to sell me insurance on the 1997 Civic, he was
pushing for me to add comp and collision. I flat out told my agent, why
should I pay you an extra $400 per year for a car that you will just
total after a mere fender bender?

This was my line of thinking. Why should I pay an extra $400 for
insurance plus a $500 deductible for a vehicle that I would be lucky to
get $2,000 for if my insurance company were to total it?

Maybe someone can shed some light as to if my line of thinking is
incorrect....

- Chris

 

On 2008-05-02, ChrisB <ChrisB@somewhere.someplace.com> wrote:

> This was my line of thinking. Why should I pay an extra $400 for
> insurance plus a $500 deductible for a vehicle that I would be lucky to
> get $2,000 for if my insurance company were to total it?
>
> Maybe someone can shed some light as to if my line of thinking is
> incorrect....

Nope, that's about right. I generally keep the comp, if the price is
right, just for the glass, but if it is too much of a difference,
what's the point? You'll lose in the long run.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

 

Joe wrote:
> On 2008-05-02, ChrisB <ChrisB@somewhere.someplace.com> wrote:
>
>
>>This was my line of thinking. Why should I pay an extra $400 for
>>insurance plus a $500 deductible for a vehicle that I would be lucky to
>>get $2,000 for if my insurance company were to total it?
>>
>>Maybe someone can shed some light as to if my line of thinking is
>>incorrect....
>
>
> Nope, that's about right. I generally keep the comp, if the price is
> right, just for the glass, but if it is too much of a difference,
> what's the point? You'll lose in the long run.
>
>


Also, uninsured motorist property damage will pick up damage to your car
as long as it is not your fault. Deductibles apply of course...

And maintaining comp is a good idea. Just one deer strike can ruin your
day...

JT

 

ChrisB wrote:
> Kevin G. wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am asking for advice as to whether I should remove collision
>> coverage on my 1998 Civic DX coupe that has 156,000 miles on it. I
>> bought the car brand new 10 years ago.
>>
>> If I remove the coverage, it would save me approximately $20/month.
>> Kelley Blue Book states that the trade-in value of the car would be
>> anywhere from $2,000 - $3,000, depending on the car's condition. I
>> would say that my Civic is in-between fair to good condition. It
>> still runs good and I have kept up with it maintenance-wise.
>>
>> Thanks for your advice,
>> Kevin
>>
> I have a 1997 Civic EX coupe with about 75k on the odometer and I
> dropped my collision and comp coverage based on how badly I was screwed
> in my last car wreck. The blue book on the totaled vehicle was 26k and
> my insurance company gave me close to 19k for it.
>
> When my agent tried to sell me insurance on the 1997 Civic, he was
> pushing for me to add comp and collision. I flat out told my agent, why
> should I pay you an extra $400 per year for a car that you will just
> total after a mere fender bender?
>
> This was my line of thinking. Why should I pay an extra $400 for
> insurance plus a $500 deductible for a vehicle that I would be lucky to
> get $2,000 for if my insurance company were to total it?
>
> Maybe someone can shed some light as to if my line of thinking is
> incorrect....
>
> - Chris

Insurance is for things that you can't afford to replace, like a new car
or a house. While it is a lot of money, losing $2500 for a car ($3000 -
$500 deductible) should be something that most people can afford.

Your thoughts are correct. Chances are that in five years, your car
won't be in a crash where having the insurance will make a difference
(don't forget, if you're in a crash and another party is identified and
responsible for the crash, that party is responsible). So chances are
that after 5 years, you'll $2000 + interest in the bank. On the other
hand, if you do get the insurance, in 5 years, you'll have the canceled
checks.

Don't forget, the reason why the insurance saleperson wants you to buy
the insurance is that the insurance company make a profit and the
insurance person a commission. Insurance companies make a ton of money
of the policies. In the long run, you're probably much better off
keeping the money. After 5 years, you'll have $2000 to help pay off the
new car.

Jeff

 

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Joe wrote:
>> On 2008-05-02, ChrisB <ChrisB@somewhere.someplace.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This was my line of thinking. Why should I pay an extra $400 for
>>> insurance plus a $500 deductible for a vehicle that I would be lucky
>>> to get $2,000 for if my insurance company were to total it?
>>>
>>> Maybe someone can shed some light as to if my line of thinking is
>>> incorrect....
>>
>>
>> Nope, that's about right. I generally keep the comp, if the price is
>> right, just for the glass, but if it is too much of a difference,
>> what's the point? You'll lose in the long run.
>>
>>
>
>
> Also, uninsured motorist property damage will pick up damage to your car
> as long as it is not your fault. Deductibles apply of course...
>
> And maintaining comp is a good idea. Just one deer strike can ruin your
> day...
>
> JT

Yet insurance companies pay out far less than they collect. The only
reason why the company wants to sell the insurance is to make money. The
OP is better off keeping the money.

 

The question is, if you car is totally tomorrow are you financially
able to replace it with an equivalent value vehicle? If so, drop the
insurance. If not, keep it. Insurance is best used to reduce those
risks we cannot afford to handle ourselves if they were to happen.

Thus, for example, most extended warranties on cars, appliances and
electronics are a bad bet for most people.

 

Kevin G. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am asking for advice as to whether I should remove collision
> coverage on my 1998 Civic DX coupe that has 156,000 miles on it. I
> bought the car brand new 10 years ago.
>
> If I remove the coverage, it would save me approximately $20/month.
> Kelley Blue Book states that the trade-in value of the car would be
> anywhere from $2,000 - $3,000, depending on the car's condition. I
> would say that my Civic is in-between fair to good condition. It
> still runs good and I have kept up with it maintenance-wise.
>
> Thanks for your advice,
> Kevin
>

collision coverage means that if you have any reported collision, the
insurance company owns your car, and they write it off. you get a check
for "fair value" and no car. and "fair value" isn't much.

if you "insure" the car for collision yourself, /you/ get to decide
whether the car gets written off. if it's a minor event, you can afford
to pay the repairs and keep the car running - you wouldn't have that
option with collision coverage. if it's major, you go buy a new car and
sell the crashed one for parts.

oh, and if you /do/ pay for crash repairs yourself, it's usually a lot
cheaper than an insurance repair. you know, cash, beer, barter, etc.

 

Jeff wrote:

> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Joe wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-05-02, ChrisB <ChrisB@somewhere.someplace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This was my line of thinking. Why should I pay an extra $400 for
>>>> insurance plus a $500 deductible for a vehicle that I would be lucky
>>>> to get $2,000 for if my insurance company were to total it?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe someone can shed some light as to if my line of thinking is
>>>> incorrect....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, that's about right. I generally keep the comp, if the price is
>>> right, just for the glass, but if it is too much of a difference,
>>> what's the point? You'll lose in the long run.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Also, uninsured motorist property damage will pick up damage to your
>> car as long as it is not your fault. Deductibles apply of course...
>>
>> And maintaining comp is a good idea. Just one deer strike can ruin
>> your day...
>>
>> JT
>
>
> Yet insurance companies pay out far less than they collect. The only
> reason why the company wants to sell the insurance is to make money. The
> OP is better off keeping the money.


Not if he maintains his vehicle and is principally interested in the
transportation value of his vehicle rather than "trade" value.

JT

(Whose '83 Honda is pure gold...)