The term “full coverage” refers to the type of insurance that might be requested by a company that has chosen to deal with rentals, purchases or leases.
The phrase “full coverage” refers to a concept.
That concept deals with approach taken by multiple types of coverage. For instance, some policies cover roadside assistance. The policyholder enjoys gap coverage, which could equate with money for a rental car. The “full coverage” concept does apply to liability protection, as well as to comprehensive and collision.
Coverage that could be lacking
Medical expenses might not be covered, unless the policyholder has paid some additional money, above the standard price. Policyholders that do pay that those additional dollars get to rest easy, if their injuries have forced them to exceed the health benefits that had been offered by their provider of health insurance.
The comprehensive and collision comes with a deductible. In other words, the policyholder has not been assured of full coverage, in relation to the option’s/concept’s comprehensive and collision sections.
Comparing full coverage and the underinsured motorist option
Both are designed to cover the gap between the amount of money paid by the defendant’s policy and the limits on the policyholder’s own policy. If a defendant’s policy were to have low limits, then it might not offer an amount of money that could prove capable of covering all of the plaintiff’s damages.
Personal Injury Lawyer in Hamilton knows that an underinsured motorist option would never deliver an amount of money that exceeded the maximum limit, as stated in the terms of the contract made with the policyholder. It does not look as though the same rule applies to the “full coverage” concept.
In other words, purchase of full coverage should do a better job of covering that one specific gap. Consequently, someone that had chosen low limits for comprehensive or collision with a traditional policy might want to pay for “full coverage.” That would guarantee a fuller guarantee that payment of money not coming from a defendant’s insurance company could be made available.
Understand, though, that the policyholder must pay for that fuller guarantee. That payment takes the form or a deductible. As stated above, the policyholder with “full coverage” must pay a higher deducible for comprehensive or collision coverage.
The “full coverage” appears to do a better job of aiding a policyholder that is concerned about reimbursement for a damaged vehicle. On the other hand, personal injury protection appears to do a better job of aiding those policyholders that have been injured, or have family members that were injured, due to an accident in the insured vehicle. Each policyholder has the chance to purchase either or both types of coverage. All policyholders need to consider their personal needs.