The Myth of "Full Coverage"

Written by on 1/22/2018 6:33 AM in , , , , , . It has 0 Comments.

Many times insurance brokers hear the term full coverage throughout the day. Many of those conversations are with clients requesting 'full coverage' because they have purchased a newer vehicle or just purchased a home. If you've ever been corrected it is because 'full coverage' is not a proper term.

There is no such thing as full coverage. Why? Full Coverage would be implying that everything possible would be covered. There are limits to definitions of coverage and exclusions that prevent everything from being covered.

In auto insurance for example, collision and comprehensive are the two of the coverages you require when financing a vehicle. You get to choose deductible options for each (without going over $1000). There are also several optional endorsements that can be added which provide additional coverage such as a rental vehicle, road side assistance and an accident waiver. Comprehensive covers theft of a vehicle but not theft of the items in the vehicle. Therefore it would not be proper to state you have 'full coverage'.

In home insurance the same is true. Your home policy may exclude for flood, manufacturer defects, wear and tear, ice damming and more. There are endorsements you can add that will provide you with some additional coverages but it would be impossible to have 'full coverage' under a home insurance policy.

Ensure to ask your broker questions when obtaining insurance and never assume you are insured for everything. 


Michelle Winchester
Insurance Broker

Comments are closed for this post, but if you have spotted an error or have additional info that you think should be in this post, feel free to contact us.