auto insurance

[MadMerv]

Scenerio: One driver. Four vehicles. Need comprehensive insurance (covers the other guy and his car).
Assuming, for simplicity, that all vehicles are the same.
If only one car is owned, the policy costs $500. With a multi-car discount on the four cars, the policy costs $1500. Bargain, huh?

Obviously, the owner can only drive one at a time, so why can't he get a policy on himself, instead of the cars? Since three of them are idle at any given time, the policy should still only cost $500. So you make it a bit more difficult, because who would have four identical cars?????? So the policy is on the most expensive. Am I missing something here, or are the insurance companies just RIPPIN' US OFF? Does anyone offer a policy like this? Could an umbrella police do this?

[Treibenschnell]

You are correct on one point... insurance companies are rippin' us off!

Now as for an umbrella coverage, state law requires that all driven vehicles be covered with the state minimums... so as long as the insurance companies' lobbyists keep their pressure on state government, it won't be changing anytime soon.

Edit - I forgot to add... isn't there a provision in the state books that state that someone can self-insure provided that they sign over a huge sum of cash (somewhere in the ballpark of $10k) or is this urban legend? I always wondered if the ultra rich took on this option. This way, all vehicles would be covered under one policy? Still pricey though...

[Treibenschnell]

Here's the Texas Department of Insurance website for reference...

[srivendel]

Well, if it's comprehensive, then the 3 non-driven cars are still a liability for the insurance co., even when they're parked. Hail, theft, fire, elephants, vandals, etc. could all result in an insurable loss. Thus, there is some justification for charging extra for the extra cars.

If you were just buying liability, then the reasoning would escape me.

$1,500 for all 4 still seems high, tho, if 1 is only $500.

S.

[ccage]

Everyone makes some good points. Another point to consider is that if you drive some of the cars much less than others, you can indeed obtain lower rates for them as many companies offer reduced rates for a low-mileage agreement.

But as a previous poster said, their liability remains at least to some extent even when you're not driving.

FWIW, that's about what I'm paying for full coverage on 4 cars -- 2 Miatas, a '97 F150, and a '97 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Chuck

[altiain]

Is that $1500 per year or semiannually?

Mel & I pay just over $1400 per year for three cars - '05 CR-V, '00 Accord, '99 Miata. That's with higher than minimum coverage amounts, no "occasional use only" discount on the Miata (whic reminds me, I need to call and see if they offer one - State Farm did), and the lowest possible comprehensive deductible our company offered ($100).

Call GMAC - I wouldn't buy their cars, but their insurance isn't built by union workers.

[MadMerv]

That was just an example for ease of explaining the problem......

[dyingbreed]

If all you are needing is liability get a Non-owners policy.
I work in insurance customer service.
Cars are rated with "symbols" a set of numbers stating 1/2/3
1=how much damage it could cause
2=how to fix if damaged
3=theft i think(it has been awhile since training)
comprehensive covers Your vehicle. Liability covers the other guy
bodily injury at per person/per accident
property damage per accident
in texas it is i believe 10/20/10
comprehensive is "other than collision" meaning theft, fire, acts of god etc...
collision is if the accident is your fault.
and higher deductible(your out of pocket if using comp/collision) then the lower your premium(cost of insurance)

sorry no caps, i just got home from dealing with people who whine because there policy is cancelled, cause they dont pay the bill.
hope this helps you a little bit

[MadMerv]

thanks.......

[Mathews2004]

Can't you have a bond to show financial responsibility, rather than liability insurance?