Comprehensive vs Third Party Insurance for 2010 Mazda 3

LStucgm on 23/02/2020 - 14:21

I'm a uni student, driving a 2010 Mazda 3 with ~220,000km. In the past few years I've spent about $1300/year for NRMA Comprehensive Insurance. I've been quoted for March 2020 - March 2021:

  • $310 Third Party Property
  • $375 Third Party & Fire Theft
  • $1646 Comprehensive

If an accident did occur and I needed a new car, I have enough savings to be able to afford a new one without too much stress. I've been thinking that 4x the cost for Comprehensive vs Third Party & Fire Theft just isn't worth it.

I think I'm an alright driver. I bought the car for $4000 a few years ago. NRMA values it at $6600. Third Party Fire & Theft covers damage to my vehicle if another driver is at fault up to $5000. If my thinking is correct, any damages that cost more than the value of the car result in a write off. In that case, Comprehensive wouldn't offer too much more protection to me (asssuming I'm not at fault).

Is the comfort of Comprehensive worth it? Is Third Party Fire & Theft too risky? What do you guys think would be the best option?

Automotive Car Car Insurance Insurance Mazda

Comments

  • cala90 on 23/02/2020 - 14:25
    +2

    I could be wrong, but my understanding (with RACV) is the cover up to $5000 is only if the other party is not insured?

    If you can afford to buy a new car after an accident without worry, I’d opt for the third party insurance. No point paying insane premiums if it’s worth more than the car itself, especially if you can get 5 odd years of third party insurance for the cost of one year comprehensive.

    • Mad Max on 24/02/2020 - 19:51

      You are correct, normally the cover in some third party insurances is if you are not at fault and the other at fault driver is uninsured. And as usual you need to provide all the details of the other driver.
      The question is, what if the other driver is uncooperative/unresponsive, but you do not know if he is insured or not? Is your insurer going to chase the other driver under your "uninsured at fault driver cover" or are they going to ask you proof that the other driver is uninsured? If so, how can you do that?

  • NotaSpender on 23/02/2020 - 14:30
    +1

    I would just go for third party but make sure you invest on a decent dashcam :)

  • EightImmortals on 23/02/2020 - 14:31

    Have you checked other companies for quotes? I got hit with NRMA 'loyalty tax' after many years and was able to half my premiums by looking around.

  • JimmyF on 23/02/2020 - 14:46

    If an accident did occur and I needed a new car, I have enough savings to be able to afford a new one without too much stress.

    If you're happy to go this route for a total loss and also pay for a replacement car if you have a accident that isn't your fault, ie your car is rear ended and the other party doesn't have insurance, you not your fault but you also won't be getting any money from them. Then yes there are savings to be had for sure.

    As long as you are aware of what you are giving up with going 3rd party only. ie someone else hits you and they don't have insurance or don't want to play ball, then you'll have zero help from your 3rd party company.

    3rd party will only protect you from 'other' peoples bills

  • [Deactivated] on 23/02/2020 - 15:38
    +1

    It will cost you ~$4,000 to replace the vehicle.

    If you are unlikely to be at fault for the next 3 years, it is worth considering TPP only.

    If you cannot afford a lumpsum $4k to replace the car, by comprehensive.

  • pao2x on 23/02/2020 - 16:27
    +1

    $1700 premium for a $4000 car, nope. Get third party or get cheaper comprehensive, should be 500-700 from other companies

  • Hardlyworkin on 23/02/2020 - 20:29

    The odds don't add up to have comprehensive. Save the extra money!

  • Diggins on 27/02/2020 - 13:45

    third party all the way

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join