Years ago, the term “full coverage” was widely used in the industry to indicate when an insured had both collision coverage and other than collision (formerly comprehensive) coverage on their automobile. As time wore on, the term fell out of favor within the industry for some very good reasons. Unfortunately, the public still uses the term with little understanding of what coverages they actually have and what is and isn't “full coverage”. However, like any myth, it's hard to dispel.

Various websites tackle the issue. Allstate addresses it head on stating that there is no such thing, that full coverage often refers to a combination of various coverages that help protect a vehicle. Nationwide also states that there is no such thing, and that an insured can build a policy that provides coverage for collision, comprehensive and liability. Insurance.com states that “full coverage” is a policy with not only liability coverage but comprehensive and collision as well, and explains that ideally an insured will have the types and amounts of insurance that protects the individual based on his risk profile.

However, the public at large still uses the term frequently with a variety of assumptions as to what kind of coverage they actually have. They may assume they have rental reimbursement, towing, gap coverage, replacement cost coverage, and everything else. Unfortunately, if we do not correct the perception that “full coverage” exists, then we risk misunderstandings and unhappy customers. So how do we explain coverage to insureds? Everyone has her own style, and each insured is different. What follows are just some ideas that may be helpful.