I read an article that stated California only requires $5,000 on property damage.
Property Damage pays to fix the "other" vehicle that you hit.
If true - is the California legislature crazy?
This is a ridiculous amount of coverage. I was rear-ended in early 2008 and the cost to fix was over $8000. And I don't even have a very expensive vehicle.
My transportation is a 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee, hardly the top end of SUV's.
What this means is - if someone from California hits you and causes damage to your vehicle they might only cover up to $5000 in damages. Now, as long as you have FULL coverage on your vehicle your insurance will ensure your vehicle is fixed (minus your deductible), and then they will pursue the other party.
But consider the aggravation.
You could be OUT your deductible. If you carry a $500 or $1000 deductible this could be a real inconvenience. Plus, if you only have liability on this particular vehicle you could simply be out a vehicle, minus the five grand the other insurer will pay out.
California always seems to be ahead of the curve in protecting citizens. Where are they on this issue?
The cost to increase Property Damage coverage from $5000 to $25,000 is very, very minimal, for the vast majority of policyholders. Yet, it provides the level of coverage needed, at a minimum.
One word of advice: if you ever shop around for insurance and the agent proposes "minimum" insurance coverage on your home or vehicle - RUN AWAY. This agent only sells insurance based on price.
While price is always important, protecting you, your loved ones, and your property is the first consideration!!
I've seen agents UNDER-quote home insurance before just to get the business. That's a real disservice to the consumer. If you have a house fire what is more important - having the right coverage or saving $50 a year because you insured your home for less than what was necessary?
Arizona Independent Insurance AGent
Low Cost Arizona Insurance
Independent Arizona Insurance Agent
