Comprehensive car insurance on second hand car?

• 

  tonyjzx on 21/03/2014 - 00:27

  +2

  its a judgement call

  if a car is worth $5,000 and it costs $500 to insure comprehensive, i say go for it

  it a car is worth $2,000 and costs $1,000 to insure comprehensive, i say think again

  also there are intangibles… if i had a $2,000 car but needed the car to transport my sick mother to hospital regularly and for work, then maybe i cant do without the car so I may decide to go comprehensive?

  if i have 2 cars and I can go without comprehensive on both as i have a spare car and would rather have just 3rd party property then that too is a fair call

  your car, you life, your circumstances

• 

  Azn310 on 21/03/2014 - 02:23

  +1

  Depends on your living environment too. I live in Canberra, they have hail storm from time to time, kangaroo jumping out of the road, 80km/h and above roads with flying rocks .. If you can afford another pulsar in such unfortunate events, or to fix chipped windscreens then stay with 3rd party fire theft.

  Correct me if i am wrong, but i think if you make no claims during your time having comprehensive, you are eligible for discounts. Not only is that good for you, but can mean savings for the family later on.

  Make sure to check excess fees on their PDS, some companies' excess fees are ridiculous. I stick to Bingo, they offer good rates, but they are operated online so not sure how to claim. I just use them to hopefully build up No claim bonuses.

• 

  ESEMCE on 21/03/2014 - 08:27

  Is the car under finance? If so, you may well be required to have comprehensive..
  Can you afford to go out and buy a replacement car immediately after the current one is written off?

  And is the Premium saved by going to 3rd party property ~10% of the value of the vehicle? (quite likely for a 10yo car)
  If so, I reckon it's getting to be worth the "risk".
  If you're paying more than 10% of the value, you'll probably break even within 5 years as the value of the car continues to depreciate.

• 

  cuteseal on 21/03/2014 - 10:35

  +2

  Good question … my insurance will be up for renewal soon and I'm considering the same thing.

  The other thing to think about is excess. You pay $500 per annum and still need to pay an excess when you claim - say another $500. So you are actually $1000 down.

  I would venture to say any cosmetic damage you would be able to take to a panel beater and get it repaired for less than the excess so it's not worth claiming for minor stuff.

  Any damage over and above simple touch ups will most likely result in a write off by the insurer and they will pay market value. How much is market value actually worth? Might be less than you think.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 21/03/2014 - 15:11

    Good perspective! You won't have to pay that excess unless it is the other person's fault in a crash? This is unless you are the guilty one.

• 

  jinroh on 21/03/2014 - 11:15

  +1

  Just to add, most 3rd party, fire & theft insurance has a cover for your own vehicle when you are not at fault and got hit by someone without insurance. Last time I checked, RACV covers $5,000 which is the highest among others (I think from memory AAMI, etc is 2-3k only).

  Taken from RACV website:

  damage to your own vehicle
  If you have a collision with another vehicle that is not your fault, as determined by us, and the other party isn't insured, we'll pay for the repairs to your own vehicle for up to $5,000. Conditions apply.

  Obivously this won't cover your car when you are the one at fault, but seeing that you said you are pretty confident with your driving, this may be sufficient for you.

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 21/03/2014 - 15:09

    Might have to go through the terms and conditions but it seems like that RACV has contradicted itself in that page you linked.

    "RACV Third Party Property Damage Insurance does not cover damage to your vehicle. See: Comprehensive Car Insurance"

    And this is the one you referred to: "damage to your own vehicle
    If you have a collision with another vehicle that is not your fault, as determined by us, and the other party isn't insured, we'll pay for the repairs to your own vehicle for up to $5,000. Conditions apply."

    Firstly it says it doesn't "cover damage" and then say "if you have a collision". Which implies crashing your own car into something or someone and they determined it wasn't your fault. Oxymoron?

    • 

      jinroh on 22/03/2014 - 12:04

      I think the first one implies that this cover generally does not cover damage to your own vehicle but in the case where an uninsured car crash into your car and RACV agree that you are 100% not at fault, then they will pay you up to 5000 towards the repair of your car.

      This feature is actually quite common with most car insurer's 3rd party products and I actually had first hand experience in making a claim using this cover successfully, albeit it was with Aami for $3000 only.

      My car got T-boned by an uninsured old van. Long story short, we did get paid 3000 off the repair bill by Aami. We didnt get charged any excess too.

      So I guess in the clear cut case for eg. someone crash into your car from behind, etc you should be able to get the cover for your car. For 50-50 case, even if you're not actually at fault, there's big chance that you wont get anything. But then again, this is not comprehensive cover in the first place. So you should weight up the risk as others have suggested.