Which is better full coverage or liability auto insurance?

I live in wisconsin where it is not mandatory to enjoy car insurance. I'm 26 and been driving since i be 16 without insurance and i'm planning on getting a policy started soon and i have no opinion as to which type of insurance to get. I drive a 1997 chevy lumina with around 222,000 miles on it. If i acquire full coverage will it cover my car damages as well as the other individuals damages or will liability do that and will i be required to pay a deductible? I am thinking about getting up to $100,000 within coverage.
Answers:
I JUST SAVED A LOAD OF MONEY ON MY CAR INSURANCE BY FLEEING THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT! :)
How much is your vehicle worth? That will answer your question. Add up the further premium you would pay to have full coverage (versus liability) and a deductible. Subtract that utility from your vehicle's value. If it's zero or glum it is 100% worthless, if it's a low value it is still likely to be worthless.

Based rotten the age and mileage of your vehicle you should probably be looking at just liability only.

Liability will solely cover the other driver if you are responsible for an accident it will not cover your vehicle.

In regards to have auto insurance not being mandatory? You are mistaken. It is still mandatory in WI. UNLESS you own a surety bond in place. Many people hold this misconception in several states.

Every state requires liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility (ie surety bond).
I am not gonna say that I am totally sure nearly the answer.it is really depending on the personal feelings.thus it would better for you to try to find the best answer yourself.Here

http://www.Autoinsurancepro.info

is a good resource for suggestion though.
Your car is old beside a lot of millage, it is probability not worth much so just stir with liability. If you are not sure ask your agent how much money you would get if you have full coverage. Then decide if it is worth paying the extra cost.
It depends on how much you want to spend. A 1997 Lumina with over $200K miles isn't really worth much. Look up the blue book value, although adjusters don't really use blue book to determine the expediency of a vehicle. If you can afford to replace that vehicle without insurance coverage then freshly get liability. Liability covers injuries or property damage that you grounds to another party. Liability should always be your largest concern. If you have a newer vehicle then I would suggest getting "full coverage" which includes comprehensive and collision. Comprehensive covers stealing, vandalism, hail, fire, etc. Collision covers you colliding with something except a bird or animal, also it covers your vehicle if your vehicle is hit by a hit and run driver. If you elect to get full coverage and you file a claim lower than your insurance policy to repair your vehicle then yes, you will be responsible for paying your deductible Source(s): Licensed Insurance Agent
You can compare how the insurance quotes would change, for example here - autoinsurance.maclenet.com
Full coverage is not a whole lot more money than Liability. Get a quote from a local agent for both.

One means of access to look at your decision is if you total the Lumina, do you have adequate money to buy another car? If so, then possibly you want to just keep Liability. If you are other broke like me and would need another sports car right away, then full coverage makes the most sense.

Full coverage will also cover windshield repair, towing and lock smith services that you would enjoy to pay out of pocket if you only have liability.

Related Questions:
Will my auto insurance own to income for a vehicle if the being I hit have NO insurance?   How do mexicans look for auto insurance contained by Mexico?   Got into chance. Question almost auto insurance clearance?   What's a honest auto insurance company that have a accurate rating?   Are insurance rates highly developed if you enjoy a lien on the auto?