site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1106 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for August 24, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

As a responsible, frugal, young, male driver witnessing the Decline of America, I would be utterly fucked without UMPD coverage, which is extremely valuable and necessary so I don't have to empty my emergency fund every time someone's juvenile delinquent runs a red light; but Collision and Comprehensive are just plain negative-value since their premiums have to be high enough to include the amortized cost of said delinquent replacing his own car also. (Before you ask: Liability is its own thing; I don't mind paying for that.)

I've contacted 5+ insurers trying to purchase an auto insurance package that includes UMPD without Collision, and they all alleged that Alabama bans the sale of UMPD-without-Collision. Most also claimed that Alabama is nearly unique in this.

However, I couldn't find any such law on the books, or any historic arguments/rationale behind the (alleged) Alabama status quo.

What the fuck am I missing? And what due diligence should I do before I start trying to get my state rep to fix this shit?

EDIT: to be clear, my vehicle is not financed; I am the unencumbered owner. Insurers are happy to sell me an Auto insurance plan that has neither UMPD nor Collision ("Liability-only", or Liability+UMBI if I want my hospital OOP covered), which would be significantly cheaper. But having such a plan screwed me over last time.

And if it were just 1 insurance company that said "uhh it's state law or whatever", I'd easily write it off as just a lazy, poorly-trained T1 rep lying to get the customer looking for something they don't sell off the phone (and blaming "the government" has a nicer ring than blaming "company policy" or "our underwriters" anyway.)

In fact, that's what I did assume, for the first few companies I called... but by the time I got to the sixth, and they all gave the same answer in perfectly clear terms (*sans the actual citation), and several of the reps elaborated that Alabama was somehow special (USAA rep said there's only "one or two states where that has been the case"), I had to concede that they might not just be bullshitting me.

UPDATE: just got this nonsensical reply from the Alabama Department of Insurance Consumer Affairs division:

> Is there any law or regulation in Alabama that forbids insurers from offering UMPD coverage outside of a Collision policy? If so, what is the citation?
>
> I ask because I have tried to buy UMPD coverage from 6 different insurers so far (USAA, Progressive, GEICO, State Farm, Liberty Mutual, and AAA), and every one has claimed that Alabama law forbids them from offering UMPD outside of a full Collision policy. Most of them additionally claimed that Alabama was an extremely strange case, and that they are allowed to sell UMPD without full Collision just about everywhere else in the country.

Alabama law does not explicitly forbid insurers from offering Uninsured Motorist Property Damage (UMPD) coverage outside of a Collision policy. However, the law does require insurers to offer [UMBI] coverage as part of any auto liability policy, which includes Collision coverage. This means that while insurers can offer UMPD coverage separately, it must be part of the Collision policy, which is a type of liability coverage that covers damages to your own vehicle.

Current draft of a response:

Thank you for the reply!

I don't quite understand your reply, though; it seems to contradict itself:

> "Alabama law does not explicitly forbid insurers from offering Uninsured Motorist Property Damage (UMPD) coverage outside of a Collision policy."
> "while insurers can offer UMPD coverage separately, it must be part of the Collision policy, which is a type of liability coverage that covers damages to your own vehicle."

Could you confirm what specific law or regulation is behind the second point there?

Why, exactly, is it illegal for Alabama auto insurers to sell me UMPD (which I want) if I don't also buy a Collision policy (which I do not want)?

I'm confused. Are you regularly getting into accidents? It is definitely never worth the cost to get insurance for something that regularly happens. Insurance is for things that will probably never happen in your life.

Losing your car to an uninsured hooligan sucks a lot, disrupts your whole life, and happens once in a blue moon. It's happened once so far to me, and has happened multiple times to almost every responsible adult I know. Even if there must always be some "house edge", I'm wanting UMPD coverage just to take the edge off the impact to my life.

What I resent is paying the additional premiums for full Collision coverage which also "insures" me against my own irresponsibility, at a premium based on the responsibility of my demographic peers. Even if there were 0 house edge, that's still a bad bet for me because of the massive behavioral component.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats