Are you getting comprehensive insurance coverage on your Cybertruck?

[T3slaDad]

Hey guys and gals! I've read a few interesting comments on insurance for the CT lately and one topic that's coming up is whether or not to get comprehensive coverage, and just sticking with liability coverage.

In almost all but a few rare cases supposedly, comprehensive coverage is optional. With the CT being so durable, will you be getting comprehensive coverage or not, and why?

Let's taco bout it!

Advertisement

 

[KendrickMB]

Yes, for 2 reasons. First, lenders (in my experience, at least) require comprehensive insurance on financed vehicles, which mine will be. Second, comprehensive insurance covers the glass. I'm willing to bet the glass on the CT will be expensive, so I'd rather pay a deductible than pay to replace the glass roof.

 

[cybrtrk_maybe]

I learned my lesson when I took comprehensive coverage off one of my vehicles and left it with liability only; After a multi-car accident where I was stopped, but got pushed into the car in front of me the insurance company of the car that rear ended me said they are only paying for the rear of my vehicle; They said that I was too close to the vehicle in front of me and so my insurance needs to pay for the front end of my vehicle, but with only liability... I got screwed! The law suit against the driver that rear-ended me is still pending!!!

 

[EVCanuck]

Yes, I will. Here in Canada the dual motor that I ordered with FSD will make probably a CAD90k hole in my pocket. That's a hefty amount to risk. I hope Tesla insurance really takes off and is offered in Canada as well by the time CT deliveries happen, although Quebec will probably be the last province where Tesla insurance will be offered, due to bureaucracy/legal framework

 

[Crissa]

There is literally no 'too close'. If they shoved you into the next car, then clearly it was not your fault for failing to predict how much mass and velocity was going to hit you.

Grr. Insurance companies are slime. I had one argue that an inverted bumper corner was evidence that it wasn't moving at the time of the impact. I was like, 'It's square, my car is round, There is no other way for an on-corner impact to work,'

Comprehensive is essential when it's your only enclosed vehicle, like mine will be,

-Crissa

 

[FutureBoy]

There is literally no 'too close'. If they shoved you into the next car, then clearly it was not your fault for failing to predict how much mass and velocity was going to hit you.

Grr. Insurance companies are slime. I had one argue that an inverted bumper corner was evidence that it wasn't moving at the time of the impact. I was like, 'It's square, my car is round, There is no other way for an on-corner impact to work,'

Comprehensive is essential when it's your only enclosed vehicle, like mine will be,

-Crissa

I agree with Crissa here.

Yes, when you have an expensive vehicle comprehensive is important. But if you do not have a loan on the vehicle, one way to compromise is to get a high deductible on the comprehensive. That way, for most situations you just pay to fix whatever minor items happen. Make sure that you report the incidents though so they count toward your deductible. But then when something larger happens, you still have an insurance company on your side to fight the fight with the other insurance company.

 

[Old Pro]

Hey guys and gals! I've read a few interesting comments on insurance for the CT lately and one topic that's coming up is whether or not to get comprehensive coverage, and just sticking with liability coverage.

In almost all but a few rare cases supposedly, comprehensive coverage is optional. With the CT being so durable, will you be getting comprehensive coverage or not, and why?

Let's taco bout it!

Comprehensive Coverage is: Fire, Vandalism, and Theft. This coverage area is usually part of a package for coverage. Glass coverage is within this area. Additionally if one is to take a loan out, full coverage is required. (This comes from experience as an Insurance Agent for 10 years)

 

[T3slaDad]

Great info everyone, keep it up! Let's hope this sways anyone who was on the fence about it ?

 

[TruckDaddy]

I learned my lesson when I took comprehensive coverage off one of my vehicles and left it with liability only; After a multi-car accident where I was stopped, but got pushed into the car in front of me the insurance company of the car that rear ended me said they are only paying for the rear of my vehicle; They said that I was too close to the vehicle in front of me and so my insurance needs to pay for the front end of my vehicle, but with only liability... I got screwed! The law suit against the driver that rear-ended me is still pending!!!

Let's say your client hits me from behind at 75 mph.

Insurance company: You were too close to the vehicle in front of you. It is your fault that you got pushed 35 yards ahead.

Sorry, but there is no minimal distance that must be maintained at a stop light that lets the person who hits you from behind off the hook. They are on the hook for the next 10 or 20 vehicles that they push into the next vehicle.

Picture a plane that hits a house, which hits the next house, Insurance company: It is your fault for building a house so close to your neighbor's house.

 

[FutureBoy]

Let's say your client hits me from behind at 75 mph.

Insurance company: You were too close to the vehicle in front of you. It is your fault that you got pushed 35 yards ahead.

Sorry, but there is no minimal distance that must be maintained at a stop light that lets the person who hits you from behind off the hook. They are on the hook for the next 10 or 20 vehicles that they push into the next vehicle.

Picture a plane that hits a house, which hits the next house, Insurance company: It is your fault for building a house so close to your neighbor's house.

Under this logic the real argument ought to be, "it's your fault for building a house somewhere that an airplane could crash into it". In other words, the fact that you built a house means its your fault it was destroyed.

Or in the car case. You bought a car and dared to drive it out on the roads. Clearly you are at fault.

 

[TI4Dan]

I learned my lesson when I took comprehensive coverage off one of my vehicles and left it with liability only; After a multi-car accident where I was stopped, but got pushed into the car in front of me the insurance company of the car that rear ended me said they are only paying for the rear of my vehicle; They said that I was too close to the vehicle in front of me and so my insurance needs to pay for the front end of my vehicle, but with only liability... I got screwed! The law suit against the driver that rear-ended me is still pending!!!

I was at a stop in my truck when I was rear ended, I did have my left foot on the brake pedal but when I was impacted my seat adjustment mechanism broke I fell back and released my foot pressure off the brake pedal. The car that hit me was traveling about 45 mph I can't remember how far I rolled( approx 50ft ) but I was serious dazed. Luckily a police officer witnessed the whole event. Yeah fight it for sure.

 

[Crissa]

Ooh, yeahh, if you roll at all, they like to say you're at fault.

Of course, a wreck at that speed could break your seats or disable you and that cannot be your fault.

-Crissa

 

[Ehninger1212]

I was at a stop in my truck when I was rear ended, I did have my left foot on the brake pedal but when I was impacted my seat adjustment mechanism broke I fell back and released my foot pressure off the brake pedal. The car that hit me was traveling about 45 mph I can't remember how far I rolled( approx 50ft ) but I was serious dazed. Luckily a police officer witnessed the whole event. Yeah fight it for sure.

Oddly enough, this is usually a built in feature.

My father got rear-ended a few years back and it ended up being a four car accident. It was declared the the person at the very back was at fault for all four accidents.

Also this person was not insured.. Thus the importance of uninsured motorist insurance.

 

[alan auerbach]

For sure, but not in anticipation of having to make a claim -- because comp. claims tend to be low value, if not they're likely to bump into the maximum and/or the deductible, filing a claim could lose your claims-free deduction, and too many could result in their refusing to renew your policy.

Comp. is low-cost; liability and collision are hi-cost. So whenever I'm not going to be driving for a time (2-3 weeks or more), I cancel the costly "road" coverage. If that would leave me with no coverage, when I want to reinstate the road portion, I'd be treated as a new applicant. For instance, they may require examining the vehicle. Maintaining the comp. portion makes it simpler.

To reword this, keeping comp. coverage keeps me on their books as "insured" if I ever want to dead-store the vehicle.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Comprehensive Coverage is: Fire, Vandalism, and Theft. This coverage area is usually part of a package for coverage. Glass coverage is within this area. Additionally if one is to take a loan out, full coverage is required. (This comes from experience as an Insurance Agent for 10 years)

Comp and collision are always one line item in policies I have gotten.