[Alias]

I have my 08 M3 which is my pleasure car, and I have 1994 Honda Accord as my commuter car.

Im curious what would you guys do as car as coverage on the Honda.

Currently I have a 500 Collision deductable, but I have been shopping around for a new insurance company and a lot of the agents are telling me since the car is so old now its not worth having that kinda of coverage and that I would be better off with just Liability since the car isnt really worth anything anyways

Is what the agent saying make sense? I know ultimately its up to me, but id like to see what others would do.

[Cerezo]

For an old car like that the difference is probably only $10~15 a month so why not.

[Excitmnt94]

no reason in covering it for comp or collision...simply a waste of money. for it to work out in your favor...your car would have to have a value assessed by your insurance company of over 1,000 to make up for your 500 deductible.

not gonna happen...you are just throwing that money away.

[jun]

i would just get liability coverage. ultimatley it comes down to what the car is worth to you and your risk preference. everyones marginal utility of a $ is different. i would assume the risk of total loss, rather than paying an increased premium, given the low probability that i will cause an accident.

if the other person hits you, their insurance should cover everything.

[Spec 1]

I'm a State Farm agent, and I'd do what I do on my old commuter car - Keep Comprehensive (theft, vandalism, etc) because it's not too expensive in and of itself, but drop Collision because the car isn't worth much. It will reduce your net cost, and you can somewhat control if you crash into something (so dont) and you should save money overall.

Really it's just about weighing your comfort. The car is worth $1,250, but if you wreck it you'll have to pay $500 in deductible, so your net gain is only $750. When you throw in paying $30/mo for the Collision coverage, it nets to two years time before you start saving without it. (numbers are examples)