i have been reading but i am kind of a dummy, cant really understand some words.. lol...

your basic insurance IS 3rd party liability... its to cover the other party if you cause the accident... thats what basic insurance is... doesnt cover anything else.. meaning you have to pay for whatever happens to your car... basic insurance wont pay for it..

get the insurance based on your driving habits.. if your a new driver, get FULL coverage.. if you dont have any accidents in 6+ years, no speeding tickets... dont get collision but get everything else..
or jsut get basic from ICBC (this is a must) and get your optional from a 3rd party provider...

You need to re-read what Rich Sandor wrote in the previous post..
http://www.revscene.net/forums/65753...ml#post7686700

You know when you crash and ICBC pays out, your premiums increase right? + deductible?

Your jump in premiums following an at-fault accident claim is going to cost you like $7k over 5 years, and I assume your $800/yr coverage includes a $500 deductible, so you should somehow amortize this $7.5k over the following 8 year accident-free period, tack on a moderate return, and add it to the total.

So by your logic, your cutoff is really more like $16k lol.

Not by a lot if you have 8 yrs driving clean.

Wrong. More like $1K over a couple years the way ICBC handles discounts.

In fact, this favours my argument against coverage. If your premiums increase a lot, those with optional coverage are going to pay a lot more.

I have no clue what kind of math you're doing. There's no deductible if you don't have optional coverage, so I don't know why you're considering it.

Please don't confuse him even more.

Liability is a type of insurance to cover damages like medical claims. Basic includes $200K Liability insurance, yet most of us should have $1-3M Liability coverage.

Like Rich said, I cannot tell you want to do yet can give you advice to decide yourself.

Lets say you only have Basic, no Collision or Comprehensive. If someone hits you and is 100% at fault, then your car will be 100% fixed. If someone hit you and is 75% at fault, then 75% of the repairs to your car will be paid for, you'll have to pay for the remaining 25%.

The problem here becomes what if you're assessed to be partially (lets say 25%) at fault, even if you think the other driver is 100% at fault? With Collision coverage you might let this go since your car is getting fixed anyways, yet without it you would want to fight the ruling.

Depends what you're paying for insurance I guess. If your insurance was $4000/yr at 40% discount then it would cost you $3000 over the 5 years it takes to get back to your 40% discount again.
ICBC | crs.pdf
edit: for OP, starting with a discount of 15%, falling back the 6 steps to a surcharge of 30% for an at-fault accident + the loss for not having moved up the discount scale instead, it would prolly be about $7k.

Regardless of whether it's $7000, $3000, or $1000, you still didn't take it into account and that was my whole point =)

Correct. I'm telling you that you're better off not getting collision coverage, and in fact you were underestimating how much better off.

It's not that complicated. I'm saying that between the two options:
1) Get collision coverage.
2) Invest your money instead.

Option 1 means:
-paying $800/yr extra (that you could've invested)
-paying an additional $3000 (that you could've invested) for the premium increases
-paying the deductible (that you could've invested)
-for a total of $13k, at a moderate return

Option 2 means:
-you pay out of pocket for the loss of your vehicle. was it less than $13k? then you're better off.

So again. You were saying if your car cost $8000 or less, you would be better off not getting collision coverage. I'm saying that figure is more like $12-16k.

Cool! Good points :thumbsup:

Can someone please expand on this.

I had an accident in my grandparents car back in 2006. From 2006 to 2011 I owned 3 different cars all insured at a regular discount. As if my accident never happened, I thought this may have had something to do with it being my grandparents vehicle.

In 2010 I bought a small truck for work and insured it at a regular discount 30% at the time I believe. I Also had a WRX insured for pleasure use with the same 30% discount.

In May of this year I sold the WRX and insured the same truck again to go back to work. This time I was told that I have a 15% discount and it was because I had an accident in 2006.

Last month I bought a VW and insured it again for pleasure use while the truck was still insured for work. This time I was told I would have a 35% discount on my VW, while the truck was still insured at 15%.

WTF is up with that?

i tried explaning this to the kid that bough my car and paid 3k for one years insurance on a car thats worth less than 5k.

Hes on here and hopefully reading this thread.

Can't tell you about your current situation, but your 2006 accident in your grandparents' vehicle would be a hit on their insurance.

When you have an at fault accident in someone's car, someone's insurance will go up.
At the time of the accident in 2006, did you have any cars insured under your name?
And if you did, at what discount rate?

Since 2006, does your grandparents still have a vehicle insured under their name?

Many many years ago, ICBC had a loop hole that you could do this. People would insure a cheap moped as their primary vehicle with their surcharge and then every other vehicle was at 40% discount. But ICBC got rid of this loop hole back in the 90's.

It really depends on the car. I purchased a new car and private coverage was actually slightly more expensive, with slightly better coverage.

I also have an old car and private is a fair bit cheaper.

And then you get see those vehicles with American plates...

At the time of the accident my car was not insured no. My grandparents sold thier car in febuary 2010.

I still dont understand why both cars i own now in my name, with myself as the principle driver have 2 different discount rates. Shouldnt it be one or the other for both vehicles?

wow this whole damn time i have been paying for collision when i did not need it.. pretty much collision is only good for if u total ur car or someone u let drive totaled it for u, or also maybe if there is some serious damage, but either way if u got it fixed by icbc paying deductable u will get taxed premiums or whatever..

looking back at my old 97 2.2.cl that was only worth 5 grand had collision on it paying about 200 bucks a month... and that time i was also complaining about high insurance prices.. now i am like damn insurance is pretty cheap(without collision)..

u would think collision is for an accident that is either u at fault or the other at fault, both is a collision right, sounds like a trick icbc plays on u to buy it... "oh hey do u want collision on ur insurance?" hmm let me think, collision, yes i am bound to get in a collision my fault or not! i need that!!! fucking tricksters.. but in the end its really only to cover u from a accident that is UR fault, and not the other drivers fault..

it should be called "Collision At ur own fault".... not collision.... well i guess its my fault for not doing research on this insurance stuff, wish i found this out years back..

insurance for dummies: lesson 1
BASIC insurance - covers the other vehicle(s) YOU hit ONLY. Does NOT cover you when it is YOUR fault.
COLLISION insurance - covers YOU if you run into a pole YOURSELF or get into an accident when it is YOUR fault.
COMPREHENSIVE insurance - when your car gets stolen, vandalized, etc etc

Easy.
Since you had no vehicle under your name at the time of the accident, it was your grandparent's insurance that took the hit. While that vehicle was insured, the accident affected that car's insurance. When you insured your cars, you had regular discount.
The minute your grandparents canceled the insurance on their car, the accident now affects your insurance. Since you sold the WRX, ICBC see's your truck as your primary vehicle and insurance is charged as your correct discount with the accident.
Now that you bought your new car, the insurance on that car is considered your secondary vehicle and is at the lower rate.

Btw Taylor was talking long-term. Let me pose this scenario to you:

You just bought your car for $10,000. Tomorrow, you get into an at-fault accident and total your car.

Option 1: You didn't buy collision coverage. And you're broke. So now how are you going to get to work?

Option 2: You bought collision coverage. You pay your deductible and then ICBC hands you $10,000. So right away you're back on the road and this whole time you paid practically nothing out of pocket. Also you now have a choice: you can take your time and pay ICBC back slowly (higher insurance payments) over the next couple years, or if you want, you could even cancel your insurance, bike to work, and pocket the $10,000 waiting for your discount to come back.

Just a thought =D

maybe you got an alias.... or your evil twin you never knew about..

Thanks!

This strategy only works if you actually save the savings, and have a rainy day fund to start.

This strategy works on almost all forms of "insurance" like extended warranties. No company sells a money losing product (I realize some do, yet I don't want to hear the exceptions!) and extended warranties must make money or they wouldn't sell them. People without a rainy day fund, or incapable of saving the savings, should buy the coverage. Others who can afford not to and just pay for repairs when they occur, will come out ahead.

I agree, the terms are misleading, especially for ESL peeps.

But, if you were 100% at fault in a multi car accident, your rates will go up too unless you pay ICBC back for the damage to the other cars?

The other positive side to not buying collision is that even with an accident and the car is a write off, you can try to part it out and recoup some of your money back.

The more we talk about it, the more it seems it is worth it to NOT get collision on a cheaper used car.

This thread should be stickied. :)