Full comprehensive insurance or only mandatory insurance?

In the scenario described below which insurance would you take out for your F-type?

  • Full comprehensive insurance for 1800 £

    Votes: 9 81.8%

  • Only minimum mandatory insurance required by law for 300 £

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Something in between

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Total voters
    11
I

itsajaaaag

New member
I'm wondering how high is F-type drivers risk tolerance. Meaning do you take out the full comprehensive insurance for your F-type every year or do you only take the minimum mandatory by law insurance?

Let's assume the former costs 1800 £ and the latter 300 £. With the latter it means of course that if you cause damage to your own car, you have to pay out of your own pocket to repair it.

It's a one year old car, currently valued at 70k £.

Let's assume you work from home and only do around 5000 miles per year. And you have Ghost immobiliser and GPS tracker installed.

Would you still buy full comprehensive insurance in this scenario? Or would you invest the 1500 £ difference in the stock market and this way offset the potential future repair costs?
 
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!
 
scm said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'm not living in the UK, prices are different in Europe.
 
itsajaaaag said:
I'm not living in the UK, prices are different in Europe.
Click to expand...

The majority of the members on here are in the UK.
This is like comparing apples to oranges as you are in Europe.
Also why start a poll ?
I'm sure members could reply on an ordinary thread .
 
The insurance prices in various countries is not an issue here. The issue here is my own scenario I described and anybody can answer no matter where they live. Can't hurt to hear your opinions, it's the off-topic forum anyway :)

I started a poll as most people can't be bothered to write replies, but they have no problem clicking an easy poll button.
 
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..
 
Unsure how things work in EU, but UK would also give you options on protected no claims, courtesy car, legal cover, uninsured drivers etc with fully comp.
 
itsajaaaag said:
Can't hurt to hear your opinions, it's the off-topic forum anyway :)
Click to expand...

Not any more.
Insurance on the F-Type isn't realy an off topic subject.
Moved it to the main chat for you.
;)
 
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!
 
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... :oops:

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.
 
itsajaaaag said:
scm said:
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!
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
Derivative said:
In the UK fully comp can often be cheaper than TPFT. Don't ask my how or why.
Click to expand...

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).
 
cj10jeeper said:
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..
Click to expand...

100% agree with you. If you can buy and run one, you can afford to insure it properly.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top