Auto Insurance: Adding another car to the existing policy (GEICO)
They'll refund your money (though maybe with a small service charge).  I'm sure they regularly deal with new car sales gone wrong. tl;dr: Call them. I'd be very surprised if you have a problem. I used to have have a policy with Geico, and would pay for my car insurance 6 months at a time. About 2 months into my last period, I purchased a house. Unfortunately, Geico didn't offer homeowners insurance in my state, so I ended switching to another company that offered a better auto+home combined policy.  Since I had already paid for 6 months of coverage, I figured I'd just be stuck being double-covered for 4 months. So, I didn't bother doing anything until the end of the 6 months and called them to cancel the auto-renewal thinking what I've already paid was a sunk cost. The asked me why I was canceling and I explained the situation and they backdated the cancellation to when I got my policy with the other company and Geico issued me a refund for the time there was overlap.  Considering that they did that for a leaving customer, I'd expect them to be able to cancel the policy on a new car of a current paying customer with no issues. When adding a new or used car to the policy I have found that it is best to call the company in advance. I let them know I will be adding a car to the policy in the next few days, but I have no idea of the VIN or other info.  I have a policy with a different company and they have told me that I am automatically covered  as long as I provide the VIN and other details within 30 days. The next business day after the purchase I provide everything they need, and a new bill is generated. When removing a car from the policy it has worked the same way, a new bill is generated when removing the car. Depending on the timing and amounts they have either credited my account or sent a check.  They should have no problem removing a car that was accidentally on the policy. It might be that they charge you a days coverage. When you call them about the refund, ask if the coverage for an additional vehicle is automatic, that way you don't have to provide the info until after you get the car home.
"Without more specifics, yes, you should. The risk depends on your policy, but the impact is high. The actual requirement will depend on your state and the specific language in your policy. Some policies will provide full coverage if that driver has your permission to use the car. The cost of not complying can be substantial. If you live with your girlfriend, apply for a policy and fail to disclose her presence in your household, that could be construed as intent to fraud in some situations. Other companies will drop your coverage if they find out. You need to think long and hard before not answering a question posed by an insurance company with complete honesty. There are documented cases where families have lost out on thousands of dollars because someone checked the ""non-smoker"" box on a life insurance form, but the insurance company found a picture of the person smoking a cigar at a wedding." "There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average  a net loss for the insured.  The key word here is ""average"". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events.  What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family.  Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain.  That ""pain"" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent  backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that).  The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured.  Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation." Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven.  Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year.  The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads.  The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality). This answer should be taken as a counterpoint to Thevin S's excellent answer. I have comprehensive insurance on my vehicle. That is, if I crashed it and wrote it off, my insurance would cover the replacement costs. Now, if this happened, I would be able to deal with the replacement costs myself, even without insurance. It would not significantly impact my lifestyle and would not put my emergency funds at risk, though obviously I wouldn't be happy about this. As the insurance company is planning on making money off of me, it's clearly not in my financial best interests to carry this insurance. Statistically speaking, it's a cost to me, and a profit for the insurance company. So why do I do it? Because I find it easy to pay a small amount of money every month for the peace of mind that, if I crash my car, I will not have to cover the large expense. I am (perhaps irrationally) risk averse. I'm happier paying a small amount of money in exchange for a guarantee that I will not have to pay a large amount of money. I mitigate a potentially larger cost, albeit with low likelihood, for the certainty of a smaller cost (my monthly insurance payments). This is separate from the mandatory PL/PD (public liability, public damage) insurance that I am required to cover. That insurance fits into Thevin's definition of a devastating event. Your current insurance, but at full price, is available to you via COBRA.  You can also look on your states exchange or the federal exchange for insurance.  You generally will not get your new company to provide money for COBRA or a policy not offered by your employer. But you can always ask. I have known of some companies that will provide money or vacation days to employees that get their insurance via TRICARE (for retired military). Also you will have to watch open seasons. When you start with the new company you have 30 days to join their program. If you don't signup in time, you have to wait for either a life event, or the next open season - which only happens once a year. If COBRA runs out before you get the new insurance in place you will have a problem. Note that open season may lead the start of the new policy by weeks or months. Auto insurance is a highly personalized item, so depending on your driving record and other factors, $600 a month for full coverage may be as good as you can get. Look at the premium for each category, and consider raising the deductible if you have some savings that could be used in the event that you have a claim. Also, you're not only buying insurance to cover the other person's damage and medical expenses, you're paying for insurance for your car.  Brand-new cars are more expensive to replace (and thus insure) than used cars. Leasing is effectively renting a car for a long period of time. While the payments are less, when the lease expires you're going to have to decide whether to give up the car or buying it, usually at a price much higher than market value.   I'm glad you discovered that the insurance would break your budget before it's too late.  My suggestion would be to look for a 1-2 year old car that's less expensive to buy and to insure. Hey I used to do this for a job.          having two separate policies is a bad idea. If you decide you need more life insurance just increase the one you currently have. There are usually discounts for having higher levels of cover. Not only that but if you have multiple policies all you're getting is the task of doing multiple claims and maybe some additional policy fees depending on which companies you're looking at.        What did you consider when deciding how much life insurance to take? There is nothing illegal about a vehicle being in one person's name and someone else using it.  An illegal straw purchase usually applies to something where, for example,  the purchaser is trying to avoid a background check (as with firearms) or is trying to hide assets, so they use someone else to make the purchase on their behalf to shield real ownership. As for insurance, there's no requirement for you to own a vehicle in order to buy insurance so that you can drive someone else's vehicle.  In other words, you can buy liability coverage that applies to any vehicle you're operating. The long and short of it here is that you're not doing anything illegal or otherwise improper,but I give you credit for having the good morals for wanting to make sure you're doing the right thing. I tend to agree with Rocky's answer.  However it sounds like you want to look at this from the numbers side of things.  So let's consider some numbers: I'm assuming you have the money to buy the new car available as cash in hand, and that if you don't buy the car, you'll invest it reasonably.  So if you buy the new car today, you're $17K out of pocket.  Let's look at some scenarios and compare.  Assuming: If you buy the new car today, then after 1 year you'll have: If you keep the old car, after 1 year you get: After 2 years, you have: And after 3 years, you're at: Or in other words, nothing depletes the value of your assets faster than buying the new car. After 1 year, you've essentially lost $5K to depreciation.    However, over the short term the immediate cost of the tires combined with the continued depreciation of the old car do reduce your purchasing power somewhat (you won't be able to muster $25K towards a new car without chipping in a bit of extra cash), and inflation will tend to drive the cost of the new car up as time goes on.  So the relative gap between the value of your assets and the cost of the new car tends to increase, though it stays well below the $5k that you lose to depreciation if you buy the new car immediately.  Which is something that you could potentially spin to support whichever side you prefer, I suppose. Though note that I've made some fairly pessimistic assumptions.  In particular, the current U.S. inflation rate is under 1%, and a new car may depreciate by as much as 25% in the first year while older cars may depreciate by less than the 8% assumed.  And I selected the cheapest new car price cited, and didn't credit the tires with adding any value to your old car.  Each of those aspects tends to make continuing to drive the older car a better option than buying the new one. Your basic point is correct; the savvy move is to use insurance only to cover losses that would be painful or catastrophic for you. Otherwise, self-insure. In the specific example of car insurance, you may be missing that it doesn't only cover replacement of the car, it also covers liability, which is a hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars risk. The liability coverage may well be legally required; it may also be required as a base layer if you want to get a separate umbrella policy up to millions in liability. So you have to be very rich before this insurance stops making sense. In the US at least you can certainly buy car insurance that doesn't cover loss of the car, or that has a high deductible. And in fact, if you can afford to self-insure up to a high deductible, on average as you say that should be a good idea. Same is true of most kinds of insurance, a high deductible is best as long as you can afford it, unless you know you'll probably file a claim. (Health insurance in particular is weird in many ways, and one is that you often can estimate whether you'll have claims.) On our auto policy, the liability and uninsured motorist coverage is about 60% of the cost while damage to the car coverage is 40%. I'm sure this varies a lot depending on the value of your cars and how much you drive and driving record, etc. On an aging car the coverage for the car itself should get cheaper and cheaper since the car is worth less, while liability coverage would not necessarily get cheaper. "In terms of how to make your decision, here are some considerations. Comprehensive insurance often covers other perils besides collision, including fire, theft, hail or other weather damage, additional liability coverage etc. It may be worth looking at your specific policy to see what is covered. No matter what you do, make sure you have some form of personal liability coverage in case you are sued (doesn't necessarily need to be through the auto policy). While it can make financial sense to drop comprehensive coverage once you can afford to self-insure against collision, this will only be the case if you are certain that you can set aside dedicated savings that you would only need to dip in to in the case of a collision or other major loss. For example, if you only have $5-$10,000 in the bank, and you happen to lose your job, and then the next month you happen to be hit in an accident and the car is totaled, could you afford to replace the car out of pocket? I would recommend looking at dropping comprehensive insurance as similar to a ""DNR"" (do not resuscitate) order for your car, i.e. under no circumstances would you choose repair the car were it totaled or damaged. For example, if your car's exterior were badly damaged in a hail storm (but still ran fine), would you pay $500 or more to repair it, or would you simply get a new car? Ultimately, this is going to be a judgement call based on how much financial risk you want to take on. Personally, I would continue to pay the extra $300 per year for now in order to insure a $6-8,000 asset (5% of the asset value) However, in the next few years the resale value of your car will continue to decline. If in a few years the car were worth $1,500, I would probably not pay the same $300 a year (or 20% of the asset's value). When you should make that choice depends on how many more years of service you expect to get from the car, which is a very localized question. Hope that helps!" "The system of comparison and calculation of insurance rates seems completely and utterly flawed to me. Why would you group cars from different manufacturers together by arbitrarily defined factors such as weight and size? It is perfectly possible to have a big, heavy car with very low claims, while a small car can have a lot more claims.   The response provided by Tesla seems similarly moronic. They claim that their car is being compared to the wrong types of car, but even if that were the case - *so what*? If the other cars you are being compared to are too cheap/slow/small, then you have obviously been assigned to the wrong group, and should be in another group with the bigger, more expensive cars, which I would gather are even more expensive to insure, and thus your car should be more expensive to insure.   If an insurance company is providing insurance to 1000 Volvo XC 90 drivers and 1000 Tesla Model S drivers and they get 100 claims from the Volvo drivers costing them a total of $ 200,000, while they get 150 claims from the Tesla drivers totaling $ 300,000 during the same time period, obviously the Tesla should be 50 % more expensive to insure. That is literally how car insurance works.   Here in Germany, every model of car is assigned a unique identifier (""Typschlüsselnummer"", roughly translates as ""type number"" or ""type identifier""). Insurance companies track which cars their clients own, and report condensed claims statistics for each model back to a central service provider, which then assigns an insurance group (Typklasse) to each car for each type of insurance (there are distinct, independent groups for liability, partial and comprehensive coverage) depending on the actual, measured per-car expenditures experienced by the insurance companies over the previous year. The insurance companies then feed that data back into their systems for their rate calculations." Among the other fine answers, you might also consider that owning a vehicle outright will free you from the requirement to carry insurance on the vehicle (you must still carry insurance on yourself in most states). If this happened, first you would be breaking the law for driving without insurance. Second, my uninsured motorists insurance would cover it.   Third, your personal net worth is not zero. You are the owner of all those corporations which happen to own those assets. I could sue you and you would have to liquidate your stakes in those corporations. Your example is just saying someone doesn't have any assets if all their cash is tied up in stocks (equity ownership of corporations). If you're argument held true in court, no one could sue anyone successfully, because everyone would just put all their money in equities before a lawsuit. You could slip and fall in the shower tonight.  Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk.  If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.