Someone else is purchasing me a new vehicle. Is full coverage required for all new vehicles or what other kind of insurance can i get? Liability?
Total Comments: 18
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 04:07 am Post Subject:
The lien holder is going to require coverage on your vehicle and not just liability. If there is no lien holder, then you will only need what your state requires.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 06:19 am Post Subject:
In my opinion it is always better to go for the full coverage but if you are loking for cost cutting you need to get the minimum coverage as prescribed by your state's governing council. :arrow:
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 01:49 am Post Subject:
If the person buying is getting it financed then there is no choice except full coverage Else you can go for Liability if that is the minimum requirement of your state. though it is not recommended in case of a new vehicle.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 04:18 am Post Subject:
Youll Need to have comprehensive and collision on that vehicle if you dont want the finance company to charge you triple the amount of what you may be currently paying.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 04:22 am Post Subject:
FYI my friend there is no such thing as full coverage, so for all the agents that replied with get the FULL COVERAGE or anything agreeing for this person to get it. Seriously, first make sure what your talking about.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 04:29 am Post Subject:
ONE MORE THING, IF YOU BOUGHT A NEW CAR AND LETS JUST SUPPOSE YOU PAID IT OFF IN FULL. YOU WONT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE COMP. AND COLL. COVERAGE ON THE VEHICLE, BUT TO ME IN MY OPINION "ONE MANS TRASH IS ANOTHER MANS TREASURE". SO IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO PURCHASE ANOTHER CAR JUST IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THIS NEW ONE. THEN BE MY GUEST AND PURCHASE BASIC LIABILITY. BUT IF THIS IS THE ONLY CAR YOU HAVE AND AND YOU PUT DOWN A NICE DOWN TO TAKE IT. YOUR GONNA REGRET IT IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT.
aND ONE MORE THING DONT FORGET THE [font=Symbol]GAP[/font]
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:37 pm Post Subject:
FYI my friend there is no such thing as full coverage, so for all the agents that replied with get the FULL COVERAGE or anything agreeing for this person to get it. Seriously, first make sure what your talking about.
OK...then what do you call a vehicle with liability, comp, collision and any required PIP or Medical coverage? I have been in this business for a long, looooong time, and while I will agree that there is no "technical insurance" term for "full coverage," it has been and is used ubiquitously in the industry and has been for decades.
So, what are you referring to this as? Liability plus physical damage? As well, please offer a suggestion as to what you would prefer us to use in place of "full coverage" if this term is unacceptable to you. We are always willing to learn something new!
BTW- your statement of "first make sure what YOUR talking about" is incorrect. In this case, the "YOU'RE" referring to is a contraction of the phrase "you are." So, in YOUR post you should have stated "first make sure what YOU'RE talking about."
Finally, if there's no lien on the car there's no need for gap insurance as there won't be a payoff to settle in the event of a total loss.
Sorry, it's just the writer in me! :D
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 03:21 am Post Subject: Full Auto Coverage
When you have full coverage auto insurance your car is covered in the event of an accident to pay for repairs to your car. In reality ‘full coverage’ is a misleading term as all insurance policies have their own limitations. Different vehicle insurance policies exclude different coverage such as fault of the insured driver, wear and tear and more. It is necessary to understand what the term ‘full coverage’ actually covers to avoid shocking expenses. Consumers are made to believe that they are fully covered even though there are risks left uncovered that are not disclosed. You can read more... http://www.assureinsure.com/article-full-coverage-auto-insurance-24.aspx
Neet, please stop with the copy and pasting, I'm going thru your posts and I've yet to find one that is NOT a copy and paste. Anyone visiting this board knows how to google...thanks...lori
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 06:05 am Post Subject:
First off, please give credit within your post when copying information from another site. Even though you gave a link within your post to the original author, you did copy another's work.
In my post, I stated that there is no "technical" acceptance of the term full coverage. "Full coverage" is institutionally accepted as coverage provided for liability in at least the minimum state limits, collision and other than collision/comprehensive coverage and any required medical/PIP coverage.
When the poster stated that the term could be misleading in the sense of giving the policyowner the impression that EVERYTHING is covered, the courts have repeatedly held that under the doctrine of reasonable expectations a policy is only required to cover those exposures that a reasonable and prudent person would reasonably expect to have a policy cover. Even if you're stupid. This is also often associated with producers stating that an HO-3 homeowner's policy provides "all risk" protection to the dwelling. Same issue.
So, the liability, if any, lies with the producer. I have never run into a single producer who doesn't know this...it's part of their licensing exam, too. If you run into any producers that don't know this- they're idiots. If they give an incorrect impression to their clients, they're idiots and put their company at risk, if they it purposely- they're criminal.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:13 am Post Subject: auto insurance
When I financed my Jeep Cherokee, the finance company automatically added the 'Full Coverage' Insurance onto my loan ( I really don't know if it had anything to do with the age of the vehicle or not..). So..when I asked them if I could get 'Full Coverage' from 'my' Insurance company, they said yes,..however, I had to prove I ahd 'Full Coverage' from 'my' Insurance Co before they 'dropped' it from my loan. It IS expensive to have it 'attached' to a loan. When I had to get another car, I got 'Full Coverage' from 'my' Insurance Company. The 'Full Coverage' through the loan was ALOT more expensive than having through 'my' Insurance Copmany. But..I din't have a choice in the matter, at the time.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 04:07 am Post Subject:
The lien holder is going to require coverage on your vehicle and not just liability. If there is no lien holder, then you will only need what your state requires.
Posted: Tue Aug 25, 2009 06:19 am Post Subject:
In my opinion it is always better to go for the full coverage but if you are loking for cost cutting you need to get the minimum coverage as prescribed by your state's governing council. :arrow:
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 01:49 am Post Subject:
If the person buying is getting it financed then there is no choice except full coverage Else you can go for Liability if that is the minimum requirement of your state. though it is not recommended in case of a new vehicle.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 04:18 am Post Subject:
Youll Need to have comprehensive and collision on that vehicle if you dont want the finance company to charge you triple the amount of what you may be currently paying.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 04:22 am Post Subject:
FYI my friend there is no such thing as full coverage, so for all the agents that replied with get the FULL COVERAGE or anything agreeing for this person to get it. Seriously, first make sure what your talking about.
Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 04:29 am Post Subject:
ONE MORE THING, IF YOU BOUGHT A NEW CAR AND LETS JUST SUPPOSE YOU PAID IT OFF IN FULL. YOU WONT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE COMP. AND COLL. COVERAGE ON THE VEHICLE, BUT TO ME IN MY OPINION "ONE MANS TRASH IS ANOTHER MANS TREASURE". SO IF YOU CAN AFFORD TO PURCHASE ANOTHER CAR JUST IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THIS NEW ONE. THEN BE MY GUEST AND PURCHASE BASIC LIABILITY. BUT IF THIS IS THE ONLY CAR YOU HAVE AND AND YOU PUT DOWN A NICE DOWN TO TAKE IT. YOUR GONNA REGRET IT IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT.
aND ONE MORE THING DONT FORGET THE
[font=Symbol]GAP[/font]
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:37 pm Post Subject:
FYI my friend there is no such thing as full coverage, so for all the agents that replied with get the FULL COVERAGE or anything agreeing for this person to get it. Seriously, first make sure what your talking about.
OK...then what do you call a vehicle with liability, comp, collision and any required PIP or Medical coverage? I have been in this business for a long, looooong time, and while I will agree that there is no "technical insurance" term for "full coverage," it has been and is used ubiquitously in the industry and has been for decades.
So, what are you referring to this as? Liability plus physical damage? As well, please offer a suggestion as to what you would prefer us to use in place of "full coverage" if this term is unacceptable to you. We are always willing to learn something new!
BTW- your statement of "first make sure what YOUR talking about" is incorrect. In this case, the "YOU'RE" referring to is a contraction of the phrase "you are." So, in YOUR post you should have stated "first make sure what YOU'RE talking about."
Finally, if there's no lien on the car there's no need for gap insurance as there won't be a payoff to settle in the event of a total loss.
Sorry, it's just the writer in me! :D
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 03:21 am Post Subject: Full Auto Coverage
When you have full coverage auto insurance your car is covered in the event of an accident to pay for repairs to your car. In reality ‘full coverage’ is a misleading term as all insurance policies have their own limitations. Different vehicle insurance policies exclude different coverage such as fault of the insured driver, wear and tear and more. It is necessary to understand what the term ‘full coverage’ actually covers to avoid shocking expenses. Consumers are made to believe that they are fully covered even though there are risks left uncovered that are not disclosed. You can read more... http://www.assureinsure.com/article-full-coverage-auto-insurance-24.aspx
Neet, please stop with the copy and pasting, I'm going thru your posts and I've yet to find one that is NOT a copy and paste. Anyone visiting this board knows how to google...thanks...lori
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 06:05 am Post Subject:
First off, please give credit within your post when copying information from another site. Even though you gave a link within your post to the original author, you did copy another's work.
In my post, I stated that there is no "technical" acceptance of the term full coverage. "Full coverage" is institutionally accepted as coverage provided for liability in at least the minimum state limits, collision and other than collision/comprehensive coverage and any required medical/PIP coverage.
When the poster stated that the term could be misleading in the sense of giving the policyowner the impression that EVERYTHING is covered, the courts have repeatedly held that under the doctrine of reasonable expectations a policy is only required to cover those exposures that a reasonable and prudent person would reasonably expect to have a policy cover. Even if you're stupid. This is also often associated with producers stating that an HO-3 homeowner's policy provides "all risk" protection to the dwelling. Same issue.
So, the liability, if any, lies with the producer. I have never run into a single producer who doesn't know this...it's part of their licensing exam, too. If you run into any producers that don't know this- they're idiots. If they give an incorrect impression to their clients, they're idiots and put their company at risk, if they it purposely- they're criminal.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:13 am Post Subject: auto insurance
When I financed my Jeep Cherokee, the finance company automatically added the 'Full Coverage' Insurance onto my loan ( I really don't know if it had anything to do with the age of the vehicle or not..). So..when I asked them if I could get 'Full Coverage' from 'my' Insurance company, they said yes,..however, I had to prove I ahd 'Full Coverage' from 'my' Insurance Co before they 'dropped' it from my loan. It IS expensive to have it 'attached' to a loan. When I had to get another car, I got 'Full Coverage' from 'my' Insurance Company. The 'Full Coverage' through the loan was ALOT more expensive than having through 'my' Insurance Copmany. But..I din't have a choice in the matter, at the time.
Add your comment