No Such Thing as "Full Coverage."
If you’ve had an insurance policy for more than five minutes, you’re probably familiar with the term “full coverage.” I’ll share a secret with you; as someone who prides himself on accuracy, and who keeps a modest collection of dictionaries, I tend to obsess over the terms we use and what we allow ourselves to assume about our insurance coverage.
Companies have even begun to shy away from words like “comprehensive” when referring to an auto policy because of how some have interpreted the meaning. Many now refer to comprehensive coverage as “other than collision.” That strikes me as plain ridiculous, but it does prove a point.
My concern with calling the combination of comprehensive and collision coverage “full” is that it implies completeness. And as we should all know, coverage can be anything but complete.
Look at your Missouri personal auto policy and review the sections titled Definitions and Exclusions. You’ll quickly see that there are restrictions as to who is an insured, what activities are excluded, and under what circumstances coverage may not apply.
Each week, I speak with people who never knew that the individuals living with them might not be covered in an accident when borrowing their vehicles. Others didn’t realize that they could meet Missouri’s minimum auto liability requirements and still have wages garnished after an accident because the limits carried were insufficient.
Words matter. Definitions matter even more. Insurance policies are contracts, and contracts are built on language.
Now picture this:
An accident happens. It’s inconvenient, but not catastrophic. There’s frustration, of course, but not panic. The claim is handled. The limits are sufficient. The right endorsements are in place. The exclusions that might have applied were addressed much earlier during a thorough review.
In that moment, may be no surprise letter. No wage garnishment. No uncomfortable realization that “full coverage” didn’t mean what it sounded like.
That outcome rarely happens by accident.
It usually traces back to a deliberate conversation. One where assumptions were challenged, definitions were examined, and someone who puts clients first took the time to scrutinize the policy as a contract rather than a product.
So, here’s a quieter question:
When was the last time someone reviewed your policy line by line, not to sell you something new, but to test the language against your real life?
If that question creates even a little discomfort, it may be worth exploring why. If you’d rather test the language now than interpret it under stress later, it only takes about two minutes to get the ball rolling. Click HERE to get started.
