WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.1K

You may think "but yes I do, I have a title and don't owe anything on it." Well, you have insured yourself and the car, right? So you go for a drive and get into an accident where you cannot drive the car away. At that point, the car becomes property of the insurance agency that insures it since they have to then determine liability and subsequent costs of repair or write off. You can REQUEST to have the car "released" back to you in which then your write off amount will be the value of the car at the time of accident minus whatever they calculate the junk is now worth.

But technically, you don't actually own it. If you declined towing and removed it from the scene on your own, taking it home or to another service station not authorized, your insurance coverage could be affected negatively.

It's another usury game by the usual suspects.

Note: I live in Texas and so this may all be regional, could even be part of the coverage paid for. Either way, still seems dodgy to me.

EDIT again: This is all due to the fact the car in question is actually my dads, so the 'ownership' isn't mine, which all makes sense. I guess I need to read up more on kike insurance regulations.

You may think "but yes I do, I have a title and don't owe anything on it." Well, you have insured yourself and the car, right? So you go for a drive and get into an accident where you cannot drive the car away. At that point, the car becomes property of the insurance agency that insures it since they have to then determine liability and subsequent costs of repair or write off. You can REQUEST to have the car "released" back to you in which then your write off amount will be the value of the car at the time of accident minus whatever they calculate the junk is now worth. But technically, you don't actually own it. If you declined towing and removed it from the scene on your own, taking it home or to another service station not authorized, your insurance coverage could be affected negatively. It's another usury game by the usual suspects. Note: I live in Texas and so this may all be regional, could even be part of the coverage paid for. Either way, still seems dodgy to me. EDIT again: This is all due to the fact the car in question is actually my dads, so the 'ownership' isn't mine, which all makes sense. I guess I need to read up more on kike insurance regulations.

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

You still own your car, dipshit. The issue is that insurance is required by law, even if you have enough money to pay for any damages the car might cause. That's the grift.

[–] 1 pt

This time, I am the dipshit. Sounds like the confusion from me is because its my dads truck, so they're basically telling me to fuck off.

I guess that makes sense.

[–] 0 pt

Insurance is only a grift if you never use it...