Full comprehensive insurance or only mandatory insurance?

[Jimmyrn85]

What's wrong with him starting a poll? Up to him?!

I'd pay the most that I could afford mate, bit like tyres on the car, I won't use budget therefore IF my insurance was £1800 fully comp I'd pay it!

[stefan9107]

Other than my first ever year of driving in my first car I've always gone fully comp. Third party fire and theft was £2000 on my £800 car, but after the first year I upgraded to a different car and went fully comp.

You aren't in the UK and as a result I don't think many here could really offer sound advice. It appears as if the insurance systems might be quite different. Here at least I always assumed fully comp was just the norm for the vast majority. I've never even considered not being fully comp on any car since the 1st, especially one worth £70k. As far as I know, which isn't a lot as I've never looked into it, there are only two options for insurance here. Fully comp and third party fire and theft. That could be completely wrong but that's always the options that have been presented to me on the usual comparison websites. So what "something in between" would be, I have no clue.

I've always looked at the overall package of cost of the car, insurance, servicing, tax etc and asked myself does any of it feel too expensive. If it does, it means I can't afford the car. Now given you are saying this car is worth £70k, I'd like to think its a safe assumption you can afford the £1800 comfortably. In which case you should pay it in my opinion. If there is some kind of in between package, whatever that might be, maybe that's okay, but I definitely wouldn't go for the bare minimum. Even just a windscreen replacement is upwards of £1000. You may also think "I don't drive like a prick so it won't ever be my fault and therefore the other persons insurance will cover it" and that might be the case. The bigger risk though comes from someone smashing into your car when its parked and driving off, or being hit by an uninsured driver. Even if a crash is their fault, if there are no witnesses and they contest it... Unless you've got cameras pointed in four directions the insurance will just agree it's a 50/50, which in your case could mean £70k down the drain if its a write off. It happened to my dad where someone drove into the back corner of his car. All apologetic at the scene but then come insurance time they claimed he reversed into them. These are all things you've got to consider. I could also throw in that depending on where you live and what the laws are, the person who you crash into might sue the shit out of you. If you have a good fully comp policy they'll cover your legal costs. If you don't...

If we were talking about a £10-20k car I may of said the cheaper option is fine. I just can't do that on a £70k car though.

[scm]

Your fully comp assumption is much higher than I'm paying - it's nearer your third party value. Hope my next renewal doesn't match your estimates!

I'm not living in the UK, prices are different in Europe.

If you filled in your location, people would be able to provide more relevant-to-you information. Help others to help you!
And showing prices in £s adds to the confusion.

[Backofthenet]

fully comp and gap insurance - only £325 including Gap though for 2017 SVR

[Derivative]

In the UK fully comp can often be cheaper than TPFT. Don't ask my how or why.

The next time you get a quote try both and see what differences there are. One thing the TPFT market is significantly smaller than the fully comp market.

[scm]

In the UK fully comp can often be cheaper than TPFT. Don't ask my how or why.

TP risks are potentially much higher than car damage so not sure the differential is anywhere as much as the OP suggests (certainly in the UK).

[davidls]

Ignoring UK or EU I’d still pay the higher premium, because fully comp is far more than just self caused damage. Uninsured drivers crashing, car park bumps, vandalism, etc. plus of course
repair costs are so high and against the asset value of £70k, the risk to cost ratio is way too high.
If I can buy and stand the depreciation on £70k car I can pay to insure it properly.

As an aside you can judge the level of fully comp claims by the level of premium..

100% agree with you. If you can buy and run one, you can afford to insure it properly.

[NCE 61]

UK is generally a lot cheaper than mainland European countries, in Belgium what is classed as fully comprehensive for my six year old 2 litre is €140 per month, equivalent to TPFT €90 per month. Generally insurance companies even try and persuade you to reduce the cover when a vehicle is more than five years old due to what they deem to be the value of the vehicle.

[itsajaaaag]

To get everyone back on topic, what would you do in my shoes where full comp is extremely expensive to pay each year?

[davidls]

I believe you emphatically have the answer already. If you have a £70K car, it’s fully comprehensive insurance, why wouldn’t you?

If you can’t afford to insure it properly, there’s little point owning the car.