
Liability-only car insurance is a policy that covers costs for other people's injuries or property damage if you're at fault in an accident. It does not cover your own vehicle repairs or medical expenses. This is the most basic and legally required form of auto insurance in most states. The core components are bodily injury liability (BI), which pays for others' medical bills, and property damage liability (PD), which covers damage you cause to someone else's car or property, like a fence or building.
Every state that mandates car insurance sets its own minimum coverage levels, typically expressed as three numbers (e.g., 25/50/25). This means $25,000 for injuries per person, up to $50,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage. The table below shows minimum requirements for a selection of states, demonstrating significant variation.
| State | Bodily Injury Liability (per person) | Bodily Injury Liability (per accident) | Property Damage Liability (per accident) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Florida | $10,000 | $20,000 | $10,000 |
| California | $15,000 | $30,000 | $5,000 |
| New York | $25,000 | $50,000 | $10,000 |
| Texas | $30,000 | $60,000 | $25,000 |
| Alaska | $50,000 | $100,000 | $25,000 |
| Pennsylvania | $15,000 | $30,000 | $5,000 |
This type of policy is often chosen by drivers with older, low-value cars where the cost of full coverage (which includes collision and comprehensive) may exceed the car's worth. The major risk is that if you cause an accident, you are personally responsible for all costs to repair your own car and treat your own injuries. If the damages you cause exceed your policy limits, you could be sued for the difference. It's a calculated financial decision that prioritizes legal compliance and protecting your assets from others' claims over protecting your own vehicle.

For me, it's the absolute cheapest way to stay legal on the road. My car's a beater, probably worth less than two grand. Paying for full coverage would be a waste of money—I'd pay more in premiums than I'd ever get back if it got wrecked. This way, if I mess up and hit someone, their bills are covered, which is what the law cares about. My own car? That's on me to fix or replace, but I knew that going in. It's a trade-off for saving a significant amount of cash every month.

Think of it as the foundation of car insurance, the part that protects everyone else from you. It's not about your car; it's about your responsibility. If you cause a crash, this insurance handles the other driver's medical costs and repairs their vehicle, up to the limits you chose. It’s legally required because it provides a basic level of financial protection for the public. The key is understanding that it offers zero protection for your own property. You're betting that you're a safe enough driver that you won't be the one at fault.

From a pure cost-benefit standpoint, it makes sense for specific situations. The primary candidate is a vehicle with a low actual cash value. If your annual premium for collision and comprehensive insurance is more than 10% of your car's value, dropping to liability-only is a logical financial move. You're essentially self-insuring for the risk of damage to your own car. The decision hinges on your ability to absorb a total loss of the vehicle. It's a calculated risk, but for a depreciated asset, it often saves money without increasing your legal liability to others.

I see it as the bare minimum, and honestly, it makes me a little nervous. Sure, it keeps you legal, but the state minimums are often too low. A serious accident could easily result in bills that surpass those small limits, leaving you personally on the hook. I'd only recommend it if the car is truly old and not worth much. Even then, I'd suggest buying liability limits much higher than the state minimum—like 100/300/100—to better protect your savings and assets from a lawsuit. It’s about managing a bigger financial catastrophe, not just a fender bender.


