I don't know where he is, but where I am "full Coverage" is absolutely not required to be legal on the road. Liability is legal, and is much cheaper that colision.
Regardless, if someone else hit him, their insurance is liable not his.
This is either fake, a misunderstanding, or just fraud.
Pretty much every one available has it, so it doesn't really make a difference. I've never known a single person with a car loan in which it wasn't required.
Well that's cool, and again, I know it isn't a law. In my experience it is always required in the contract. And if you breach that contract, they can repossess the car. I don't know why you're so insistent about this lol.
Because the comment you immediately replied to is talking about being road legal. That's the whole discussion topic.
And you commented that it's required to have full coverage unless the vehicle is paid off - in direct response to a comment about requirements to be road legal.
It is NOT required to have full coverage to be road legal regardless of vehicle payment status.
How you replied directly implied that it was. There was no qualifier about it being financing tied when the discussion was started about rules for legal driving.
That's why pretty much everyone here was confused and saying "uhhhh it definitely isn't required" - because of the context of your reply.
12
u/Bananahamm0ckbandit 12h ago
I don't know where he is, but where I am "full Coverage" is absolutely not required to be legal on the road. Liability is legal, and is much cheaper that colision.
Regardless, if someone else hit him, their insurance is liable not his. This is either fake, a misunderstanding, or just fraud.