Which is better for auto insurance?

Question

My auto insurance offers collision coverage, and uninsured motorists coverage. I currently have collision coverage, with a 500 dollar deductible, but if i switched to the uninsured motorists coverage i could save about 150 dollars. i am not allowed by my insurance to have both, so i would like to know if one was better than the other....

Thanks so much

Answer 1

I believe you are talking about Uninsured Motorist Property Damage insurance.  This is different then Uninsured Motorist Bodily Injury.  It is best to have collision coverage since it will pay for any damages to your vehicle if you are at fault.  With UMPD coverage, it only kicks in if you are hit by another driver and they don't have insurance or if you are involved in a hit and run.

I know in IL you are not allowed to have both UMPD and collision coverage.

Answer 2

For car insurance the most efficient way to get a low quote is do a rate comparison on car policies. Make certain that you pick similar policies with the same deductibles, auto model, zip code, etc so that all things are an accurate comparison.



What I usually recommend is an online comparison quote at http://www.InsureAutoNow.info since they have top name insurers and can give many quotes on car insurance polices.

Answer 3

Um...this doesn't make any sense. What state do you live in? I work in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Arizona, and in those states you can have collision with uninsured motorist property damage. Usually the UMPD has a internal deductible, like $200 or $300, you should check with your company. BUT UMPD is only for property damage to your car by a uninsured motorist. Like a hit and run. Collision covers to repair your car, if you get into a accident that is your fualt. See the diffrence?

So if you reck your own car and don't have collision, you won't get your car repaird.

Or if someone else wrecks your car, and they don't have insurance, you better have UMPD or you have no coverage.

Good Luck!

Answer 4

Of course you can have both.  They are separate things that cover separate acts, it's not a "one or the other" deal.

Collision covers what you did to hurt your own car.  If you run into a tree, collision covers it.  Uninsured motorist (often coupled with under insured motorist) covers if someone is at fault, but has no insurance of their own.

I suspect you misunderstood something you were told by your agent.

It could be that your car has reached the point where the fair market value makes collision something you no longer need, and he suggested the cheaper uninsured motorist coverage.

But again, you certainly can have both if you desire.