# Key Post: car insurance: comprehensive vs third party



## din0saur (18 Dec 2003)

On an old car (1996, value circa 2000 euro) what are the advantages of paying the extra (100 euro) for comprehensive insurance? I'm not concerned about the car just wondering if the insurance in the event of injury to driver / passengers is better.. This is for a second car for my spouse.


----------



## Protocol (18 Dec 2003)

*3rd-party*

Third party insurance covers what it says: a third party.  Not the car nor the occupants.  So third-party provides no cover for you, spouse or car.

Protocol


----------



## rainyday (18 Dec 2003)

*Re: 3rd-party*

AFAIK, comprehensive does not affect the cover available to passengers. It covers your own car for damage, regardless of the cause of that damage.


----------



## din0saur (18 Dec 2003)

*Re: 3rd-party*

Looking at the AXA policy document the only item related to the Insured which does not apply is the compensation (which shall not exceed 2,540 euro in any one year) in the case of the following:

- death
- loss of sight in one/both eyes
- severance of hand or foot

The cost of emergency treatment is covered by 3rd party policies.


----------



## Alex (18 Dec 2003)

*Re:3rd-party*



> Third party insurance covers what it says: a third party. Not the car nor the occupants



Non-driver occupants are covered by third party insurance - they are considered to be third parties.


----------



## Geoffreyod (19 Dec 2003)

*Not much benefit*

When comparing costs I found the differences between Third Party and Comprehensive to be very small.

In the MIAB report when I looked at the statistics it appeared that the type of person who opts for third party is a greater risk or has a greater accident frequency than the more "careful" comprehensive driver.
Certainly the insurers went to the trouble of classifying them seperately which would suggest that they were a distinct group.

Alex, any comment!


----------



## William (19 Dec 2003)

*Not much benefit*

What did the report say about the Third Party, Fire and Theft person?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Dec 2003)

*Re: Not much benefit*

If you have a car which you can afford to replace, you should not pay for comprehensive insurance.

It's rarely that a car is a write-off, so you won't claim the full amount very often.
The price is probably too high for the risk you take. 
If you have a claim, you will be involved in a lot of paperwork trying to process the claim. 

But most of all, you will have a claim which will raise the cost of your insurance in the future. 

For a €2000 second car, I doubt if you should insure it comprehensively.

Brendan


----------



## Geoffreyod (19 Dec 2003)

*3rd party*

Don't remember any specific comments in the report about third party drivers.
Just remember that third party and comprehensive drivers were classified seperately and accident frequency\claim costs for both differed enough for it to seem to be valid to classify them seperately.

Whenever I've went looking for quotes the difference between premiums for TPF&T and Comprehensive was always very small and it was practically impossible to get a quote for TPO.


----------



## ondarack (6 Mar 2010)

So if you have Comp insurance with a major insurer like Axa will the insured drivers medical costs be covered regardless of who caused the accident? My car is only worth about 1500 but I normally pay the extra 60-70 euro extra for comprehensive rather than TPFT


----------

