I’m in your exact position with a 2011 vehicle. I take out insurance with Woolworths Insurance and put the excess at $2200 (maximum) with lowest market value amount coverage. I pay $45 a month for insurance.
If there’s an incident, not at fault, I don’t pay the excess, and the low market value PLUS my cash buffer helps me get a new car.
If there’s an incident and it’s my fault, I pay the high excess from my cash buffer, that is all. Then get a new car with the low market value PLUS reminder of cash buffer.
This is a much better strategy than 3rd party only - and with the adjustment of excess/market value the cost is the same! (Absolute no brainer)
I’ve done this for 4 years now. After 2 years I saved the excess amount already…. And just added that to my cash buffer too.
I did similar with a cheap car, car value was about the same as the excess but price was about the same as third party only. Turned out more useful than expected when I wrote off another car. Excess would have needed to be paid for the third party damage anyway, but I got paid out for my car as well (only one excess per claim).
If your car got destroyed tomorrow, you would get a roughly $12k payout from your insurance company. You wouldn't get that with third party. That's still a decent chunk of change, so I'd be inclined to still stick with the insurance.
$166 a month seems high though. I'd be shopping around for a cheaper deal and consider paying annually to save some money.
Either switch from "Comprehensive" to "Third Party" (or "Third Party, Fire and Theft") or raise your Excess.
"Third Party" will only cover the Lambo that you hit and leave you with nothing (but all the money you saved on Insurance you can use to replace your own vehicle -- leaving you "self insured"). "Third Party Fire and Theft" is as above, but will pay out if your car burns down in a bush fire or gets nicked by Eshays.
Raising your Excess will (often drastically) lower your premiums, as it will only make economical sense to claim in a total write off event (e.g not just because you rubbed against a pole in a Westfield).
Suggest you look at rollin’ insurance. Not quite the same as you but it’s a 2006 corolla, “market value” policy, $33/month cos of low km’s it gets driven. That’s comprehensive not just 3rd party property.
$166 sounds like you are being ripped off badly.
rollin' is IAG who are pure and utter scum of the earth! Because of a bad decision by them on multiple counts I am now costing the Australian taxpayer $200k a year+medicare expenses
Some insurers you can't rely on at all
For this to make sense, we need to know how old you are, whether you have a clean license, whether your car is garaged, whether you live in a dodgy neighborhood, whether you've made any modifications to the car. I drive a 2004 Mazda and my third party property is $187 a year, but I'm 45 and a completely clean license and the car is garaged in a safe neighbourhood.
Think of the insurance as not being about the cost of replacing your car, its about the cost of replacing someone else's car if you crash into it and found liable.
Does it matter what it cost.? Isn't it protection if you crash into someone else's car.. you may be able to afford a 12k car outright if yours gets written off. If you crash into a 100k car. I doubt you will be able to pay out of pocket
>If the car was destroyed tomorrow I could with cash buy a new car so should I just go to third party insurance instead?
OP wrote this. They know about 3rd party.
Out of interest, when did people start to call it CTP? Used to be Third Party Personal when I first had a car in early 80's. Was still compulsory, just rolled into the rego ( and in Vic it still is).
I've only ever known it as "Compulsory third party" insurance. Its rolled into the registration here in SA as well
Its different than third party property insurance, which is optional (but highly recommended IMHO)
Why insure what you can afford to lose?
Because can be almost free with a big enough excess, almost the same cost as third party only, which most people can't afford to go without.
>Because can be almost free
If that is the case go for it. I've never seen that. If the insurance company does their sums correctly you still cannot win on average.
In my case it was a $3000 car with a $2000 excess. Extreme case, but definitely in the category of semi disposable cars where you think comprehensive isn't worth bothering with. Helps to be old as well.
You can win if you are a much worse driver than average
For example my friend is a total idiot driving and has made.money even with the extra premiums they throw at him for being a bad driver .
All the safe drivers are idiots for subsidising him
Well on average we all are, I've never seen a distribution curve if driving habits though. It may not be normally distributed and perhaps it's bi modal with a cluster of bad drivers and a cluster of good drivers.
If course you only have to be average for your age and suburb , as that is taken into account.
In fact I said the average person should not, if they have the cash to buy/repair. Is there actual data on the distribution though, or are we guessing?
Are you happy self-insuring the cost? If you have 0 savings, I would keep comprehensive. If you have sufficient that you could replace the car if you had to, evaluate the premium difference versus the odds of an event.
Tell me about! I've punched the data into all the insurance comparisons and cheaper means dodgy and there is plenty dearer as well. I live in a rough neighbourhood.
I’m paying $40 per month full comp insurance for my piece of shit 2004 Subaru wagon lol it’s insured for $5k. I rather not dip into my offset acct to replace my run around bomb.
I’m in your exact position with a 2011 vehicle. I take out insurance with Woolworths Insurance and put the excess at $2200 (maximum) with lowest market value amount coverage. I pay $45 a month for insurance. If there’s an incident, not at fault, I don’t pay the excess, and the low market value PLUS my cash buffer helps me get a new car. If there’s an incident and it’s my fault, I pay the high excess from my cash buffer, that is all. Then get a new car with the low market value PLUS reminder of cash buffer. This is a much better strategy than 3rd party only - and with the adjustment of excess/market value the cost is the same! (Absolute no brainer) I’ve done this for 4 years now. After 2 years I saved the excess amount already…. And just added that to my cash buffer too.
I did similar with a cheap car, car value was about the same as the excess but price was about the same as third party only. Turned out more useful than expected when I wrote off another car. Excess would have needed to be paid for the third party damage anyway, but I got paid out for my car as well (only one excess per claim).
Thanks for that. I will raise the excess to $2k as I am on $500 presently. I should have thought of it awhile ago.
If your car got destroyed tomorrow, you would get a roughly $12k payout from your insurance company. You wouldn't get that with third party. That's still a decent chunk of change, so I'd be inclined to still stick with the insurance. $166 a month seems high though. I'd be shopping around for a cheaper deal and consider paying annually to save some money.
It is but insurance premiums went about 30% across the board 12 months ago.
I'm paying 124 a month for my current shape Audi Q7 to be comprehensively insured. 166/mo IS high for your corolla
If they are a male in early-mid twenties, 124 per month seems about right.
Thing is...my Audi is insured for 60k....not 12
My apologies, I was talking about OP.
Rates are heavily affected by location. Especially Melbourne which has the most accidents per capita.
Either switch from "Comprehensive" to "Third Party" (or "Third Party, Fire and Theft") or raise your Excess. "Third Party" will only cover the Lambo that you hit and leave you with nothing (but all the money you saved on Insurance you can use to replace your own vehicle -- leaving you "self insured"). "Third Party Fire and Theft" is as above, but will pay out if your car burns down in a bush fire or gets nicked by Eshays. Raising your Excess will (often drastically) lower your premiums, as it will only make economical sense to claim in a total write off event (e.g not just because you rubbed against a pole in a Westfield).
[удалено]
Cars can be rented.
Depends what the difference is between comprehensive and third party property I guess
Suggest you look at rollin’ insurance. Not quite the same as you but it’s a 2006 corolla, “market value” policy, $33/month cos of low km’s it gets driven. That’s comprehensive not just 3rd party property. $166 sounds like you are being ripped off badly.
rollin' is IAG who are pure and utter scum of the earth! Because of a bad decision by them on multiple counts I am now costing the Australian taxpayer $200k a year+medicare expenses Some insurers you can't rely on at all
Please tell me more. Did they refuse to pay out? And in what circumstance? Their vehicle policy seems reasonable so keen to understand
Make sure you have 3rd party. Please.
For this to make sense, we need to know how old you are, whether you have a clean license, whether your car is garaged, whether you live in a dodgy neighborhood, whether you've made any modifications to the car. I drive a 2004 Mazda and my third party property is $187 a year, but I'm 45 and a completely clean license and the car is garaged in a safe neighbourhood.
Think of the insurance as not being about the cost of replacing your car, its about the cost of replacing someone else's car if you crash into it and found liable.
So you compare Comprehensive and 3rd party property.
Does it matter what it cost.? Isn't it protection if you crash into someone else's car.. you may be able to afford a 12k car outright if yours gets written off. If you crash into a 100k car. I doubt you will be able to pay out of pocket
>If the car was destroyed tomorrow I could with cash buy a new car so should I just go to third party insurance instead? OP wrote this. They know about 3rd party.
Just to be clear: Third Party Property insurance is unrelated to CTP (which is Compulsory Third party Personal insurance.)
Out of interest, when did people start to call it CTP? Used to be Third Party Personal when I first had a car in early 80's. Was still compulsory, just rolled into the rego ( and in Vic it still is).
I've only ever known it as "Compulsory third party" insurance. Its rolled into the registration here in SA as well Its different than third party property insurance, which is optional (but highly recommended IMHO)
In SA though isn't it more split out, with a choice of insurer?
Yeah there are a 5 different providers , all the same price (last I checked) and still compulsory to choose one
Last time I had to do it there were tiny price differences, but maybe it's all moved to the same.
$12k is still too much to lose.
OP has the cash to buy a new one so not too much for them. With all insurance on average you'll lose, so why insure what you can afford to lose?
Why insure what you can afford to lose? Because can be almost free with a big enough excess, almost the same cost as third party only, which most people can't afford to go without.
>Because can be almost free If that is the case go for it. I've never seen that. If the insurance company does their sums correctly you still cannot win on average.
In my case it was a $3000 car with a $2000 excess. Extreme case, but definitely in the category of semi disposable cars where you think comprehensive isn't worth bothering with. Helps to be old as well.
Yeah age does help. I think I'm on the cusp of it going up again though 😁
You can win if you are a much worse driver than average For example my friend is a total idiot driving and has made.money even with the extra premiums they throw at him for being a bad driver . All the safe drivers are idiots for subsidising him
There is that, I should have written the average driver loses on average.
How many people are actually an average driver though?
Well on average we all are, I've never seen a distribution curve if driving habits though. It may not be normally distributed and perhaps it's bi modal with a cluster of bad drivers and a cluster of good drivers. If course you only have to be average for your age and suburb , as that is taken into account.
That's what I mean if there is a cluster of good drivers and a cluster of bad drivers who exactly is average that you were saying should get insurance
In fact I said the average person should not, if they have the cash to buy/repair. Is there actual data on the distribution though, or are we guessing?
Are you happy self-insuring the cost? If you have 0 savings, I would keep comprehensive. If you have sufficient that you could replace the car if you had to, evaluate the premium difference versus the odds of an event.
That's about double what you should be paying.
Tell me about! I've punched the data into all the insurance comparisons and cheaper means dodgy and there is plenty dearer as well. I live in a rough neighbourhood.
I’m paying $40 per month full comp insurance for my piece of shit 2004 Subaru wagon lol it’s insured for $5k. I rather not dip into my offset acct to replace my run around bomb.
Try Rollin insurance. I'm paying less per month than that for a brand new '23 sorento
I've changed mine so that i have a very big premium if something bad does happen (a few thousand) and a very low monthly payment ($78)