the lease on the TL is running out next month and I called the insurance company to notify as such. I won't be buying the vehicle nor have a vehicle of my own for at least a year. they told me that I can cancel it, but when it comes to insuring another car, my rates would be at a higher tier due to having a lapse in coverage. They offered to create a "generic car" under my policy with the lowest coverage limits possible so that I show active and continual coverage through the year.

Would a break in insurance coverage be that detrimental to my ratings when it comes to insuring a car? I can't imagine people who have cars who try to commute to work and then a few months down the road reinsure their cars.

 

I know some insurance companies will give you a higher rate if you are new to them. But I would tell this agent to go stick his generic car up his ass. You can always shop for a lower rate elsewhere when you get a new car.

 

Shop for better (and comparable) insurance coverage first, get quotes, and shove those quotes up that guy's ass. If they still say no, jump ship.

 

Those jackasses are just trying to keep taking your money. Tell them you'll be purchasing insurance from somebody else next time around.

 

Not having insurance with any company will cost you a little money. When I got back from England, not having insurance for two yrs, but they ask if I had any insurance in the last year. No was the answer. I went with Allstate at $800 per 1/2 yr, this was 1989, when policy was up, I went to Nationwide and got that for the year, been with them ever since.

Call any company now, tell them you haven't been covered for a year. You will pay more.

 

Really?! I thought this only referred to owning a vehicle and having a lapse in auto insurance coverage. Why do they count not having auto insurance against you if you don't own a vehicle to insure?!

 

beats me I'm about to just buy a beater and insure it and park it somewhere if its gonna make a huge difference

 

It's usually not a huge difference, but it might keep you out of the best rating tiers. It's just one of the many rating factors that most insurance companies use. Statistically drivers with 6 months of prior insurance are better risks. Typically someone w/o prior insurance is not in your situation with no car - they have a car and don't insure it which demonstrates an underlying risk factor that most companies don't like.

I would make some calls and see if you can find a named non-owner policy or something like that. It provides liability for you when you operate a vehicle you don't own, like a rental. I think this would probably count towards prior insurance once you have a vehicle to insure.

OR just cancel everything now. Pay a little higher once you have a car again and shop for insurance again once you have had coverage for 6 months.

 

if you don't have a vehicle if you turn it in, i would say that is not a lapse in coverage. a lapse should be not paying your premiums and allowing your ins to lapse.

shop around

 

I'm no legal expert but having insurance on a commodity that you don't actually own and doesn't actually exist seems a lot like fraud to me. What if you claim that this "generic car" has been stolen? Will they pay your claim in real money or generic money?

 

non ownership policy.

 

Same reason they claim a credit score is neccesary part of a policy quote.......to make more money off us.




Like Chris Rock said," We pay insurances for the what if's. What if we dont have any accidents, do we get our money back!" (sounds funnier when he says it)