I have a buddy of mine that drives a honda accord 92, he pays like 130 bux for insurance a month, now note he is only 17, but still i told him it sounds like he is getting overcharged, Opinions Anyone?
Do you know how retarded you are to even suggest that???
I’m not far from you, Can i meet up with you right now, bury you in the landfill !
dude you seriously need to get a life, it was a simple F***ing question, go play in shit…and drown
The only shit i play in is your bogus threads. ask people who might give a shit that they might play in next time.
you seem to like them, every post i make no matter what its about, you have something to say, go bother someone else
I’m intoxicated. what more to explain?? you are the only dumbass responding to me…
Assraping did happen in this thread…and then Shaggy took a nap
glow in the dark condom i hope 
Wow I would be happy as hell to pay 130. Dude is 17 they arent going to give him great rates. He is a high risk driver bc teenagers are inexperienced. 130 is about right, when I was that age I paid more, although I think that was about when I started having more than one car. When you shop around you will always find lower rates (these are called introductory rates), once they have you they raise them. Thing to pay close attention to is the amount of tort on his insurance. By the price I can tell that he has only liability. Insurance companies like safe auto are cheap because they have very limited tort. Their claim of state minimum coverage is exactly that. If you were to get into a bad accident with minimum tort and you are at fault you could be fucked.
I pay $130/month on my 1984 633CSi, and that’s with collision and liability, and I’ve had one accident/20 years old. It was $70/month for just liability. When I had my 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited V8, it was in my parent’s name and I was primary driver, paid $160/month for full coverage age 17-19.
You be the judge.
Nah, gotta be high and dry!
To the OP, there is no way we can really give an opinion on what the insurance should be because there are too many factors to decide it… That having been said, I don’t think $130/mo. is really that bad for a 17 year old.
At 17 (5 years ago, holy shit) I drove a '96 TSi AWD. Comprehensive insurance (everything but collision,) around $95 a month. No accidents/tickets. Nationwide is on my side.
My understanding is that limited tort limits your ability to sue for pain and suffering. If you were in an at-fault accident, how would you be screwed by having limited tort?
you wouldn’t
He is high risk at 17, and the car he’s driving makes a big difference. Unfortunately Civics and Accords are not always that great on rates because they are the cause of a lot of claims, especially theft, and they are popular with young drivers which means that bottom line, there are more claims for accidents.
To put this in perspective, when I was 21 I had a 99 Civic EX and my rate was $100/mo. The rate on exactly the same coverage for a brand new SE-R Spec V was $85/mo. Also, they said if my car was a DX my rate would have been almost half. The point is there are a lot of factors that you can’t account for in an “off the cuff” rate analysis.
Also, why are you even asking this question? If he thinks he’s getting screwed, make some phone calls or look online, it’s not that hard to shop around for insurance.
I’m thinking instead of saying limlted tort, he meant limlted coverage. But what the hell do I know???