You're positive? No restrictions on how much or where you can drive? I'm surprised there could be that much difference in restrictions depending on location and the individual.

 

Probably a much worse price if it was a new F-type.

As for having to let the insurance know when the car goes in and out of storage. To each their own I guess, but I don't understand the big deal there. I have to do that, but it maps to how I will use the car here in Canada anyway, so I don't see a problem. If only doing that would deliver me an acceptable price, but it doesn't...lol... It's 2 calls. Fall, it sleeps 6 months, and then spring.

 

I don't think you should be all that surprised. The actuarial side of the insurance business is insanely NOT straight-forward.

Look at me, a near 50 year old man in Canada with a perfect record and they will not even insure me unless I'm insured elsewhere for 3 years. I have the impression this is not applying in the US?

For all I know, maybe it doesn't apply in all provinces of Canada, which would be even weirder.

 

Okay, there is a little fine print: in case of war or nuculear explosion, I am not covered on a race track or divers school using my car..

but mileage or where it can go otherwise no fine print.

 

I went through the same thing when deciding on insurance for my car. It really depends on how much risk you’re okay with. For me, I chose full comprehensive coverage because I didn’t want to stress about paying out of pocket if something went wrong. With a car worth $80k, it just felt like the right choice, especially with all the stories about accidents involving uninsured drivers.

 

Uh, yeah, it is the right choice for sure unless you might be so independently wealthy that you have no need to hold down a job etc…Then not having it could be more of a consideration/gamble.

If something happened you would feel pretty dumb. As someone who had a woman fall asleep at the wheel and take out his truck, yeah, things really do happen. It was this incident that reminded me how little I control around my safety when out on the road. In her slumber she yanked the steering wheel over as she was adjacent to me in the oncoming lane. I didn’t stand a chance in terms of reaction time. There was basically none to be had. It was crazy. Fortunately I was in a sizeable vehicle that saved my life (4Runner).

If I had been in my F-type, hmmm, not sure I would have faired so well….eek

 

Admittedly it is ONLY a V6 but my comprehensive ++ policy costs about $1,100 in MA.
The policy is even bulked up to meet the needs of my umbrella.
I have had one no-fault accident that cost about $2k for minor repairs.
I also had a major accident in my Jeep 2 years (again no-fault) caused by a crazy high-speed hit and run driver.
That time I did pay the $1K deductible.
Round here you are just as likely to be hit by a high speed uninsured cyclist.

In terms of ROI or however the OP wants to consider the economics:
I carry a $10K deductible on my homeowners policy. I can well afford that and save myself the aggravation of dealing with a small claim.
My insurer just priced the policy renewal with a $25K deductible which I can equally well afford but the premium savings were such that the "payback" would mean not making a claim above the original $10K deductible for 20 years!! IMO, not worth the risk.

Lastly, I have recently come to understand that there is reasonable probability of coming in contact (ie accident) with an uninsured car. Nationwide stats indicate 13% of drivers are uninsured. In some states that number doubles. So in addition to coming in contact with a high-speed bike and probably serious damage to bike and rider, you now have the finite probability of being in a no-fault accident with a large uninsured vehicle.

As somebody wrote previously, having no collision insurance simply means you are prepared and willing to potentially write off your vehicle completely. Even if you save $2K/year that barely equates to a simple repair and paint job. They can happen any time anywhere, even when you are parked.

 

This comment is not intended for anyone in particular on this message board

Unfortunately, many people have champagne taste buds when in actuality they are on a Budweiser budget. If you get a Jaguar and you're trying to skimp out on getting the necessary coverage for the car then the car is clearly out of that person's means.

 

Uh, perhaps this could be true is some cases. In other cases the guy could have paid cash and could have bought the car 20 times over if they wanted to. There are different situations out there.

But your point is taken. No doubt there is a lot of what you are suggesting going on too ;-o

I have seen people in my circle of life buying cars they likely had to sell a child to acquire…It’s crazy the lengths some are willing to go to for their car dreams…

 

If you’re thinking about fully protecting your assets, you might want to look into options like https://sundaysinsurance.co.uk/ . It’s what I did, and I’ve felt much more at ease since then.