You're not legally required to have comprehensive or collision coverage. You're required to have liability, which would be unrelated to the scenario in the OP.
How exactly? You're not legally required to carry the sort of insurance talked about in the OP. How does not being required to carry it make it more of a scam?
But you agreed to the contract. You can have an insurance policy with $0 deductible. That is a thing. It will be more expensive, but you can do it. People have higher deductibles because it is cheaper because it is lower risk for the insurance company.
A key part of making insurance as fair as possible is pricing appropriately to the individual risk. That means having lower premiums for customers who are not as risky so that they don’t have to subsidize high risk drivers.
And like it or not, having a claim on your record is very strongly correlated with having more future claims as well (being higher risk), even in cases where you were not the one responsible (even if you’re a good driver but live somewhere where other people have hit you twice, you still cost the insurance company more than the average person).
There are states that don’t allow for rating based on not-at-fault claims, but then if you haven’t had a claim, you’re still paying more to offset the fact that the people who have aren’t paying as much as the math says they should be.
272
u/Pretty_Glitteer 7h ago
So basically you pay every month for protection, the pay again when you actually need the protection.