Four honest questions tell you whether you need state minimum, stronger liability, or full coverage — then a licensed agent quotes exactly that across multiple carriers. No upselling; the quiz doesn't care what's more expensive.
Full coverage isn't automatically "better" — it's better when your car is worth protecting or a lender requires it. On an aging paid-off car, collision coverage can quietly cost more per year than it would ever pay out. That's not thrift; it's arithmetic.
State minimum isn't automatically "enough" either. California's 30/60/15 limits date from an era of cheaper cars and cheaper hospitals. One serious at-fault accident can blow past $15,000 of property damage before anyone's even been to the ER — and what insurance doesn't cover, you owe.
The two most underrated moves in California: uninsured-motorist coverage (a meaningful share of CA drivers carry no insurance at all) and raising liability limits once you have savings or a home — the jump from minimum to solid protection usually costs less than people fear.
And whatever level you land on, quote it across multiple carriers. The same coverage varies enormously in price between companies — the level you choose sets what you're buying; the comparison sets what you pay.
Liability of at least 30/60/15 — $30,000 bodily injury per person, $60,000 per accident, $15,000 property damage. Everything else is optional, which is exactly why it deserves a real decision instead of a default.
A common rule of thumb: when your car's value is low relative to what collision costs per year plus your deductible. Financed or leased cars can't drop it — lenders require it until the loan is done.
In California, very often yes. It's relatively inexpensive and protects you from the driver who has nothing — a scenario that otherwise leaves you paying for someone else's mistake.