So, I've been window-shopping for car insurance and one thing that really baffles me is how the quotes I get are always cheaper to get Fully Comprehensive cover as opposed to 3rd-Party Only...
When I rode a motorbike, the quotes made a hell of a lot more sense, 3rd Party Only would be the cheapest, followed by 3rd Party, Theft and Fire. Then the most expensive would be Fully Comprehensive.
Surely, it's more expensive for a company to provide Fully Comprehensive cover, as they have more potential liability, where in the worst-case-scenario: a driver crashes and it is his/her fault, the insurance company would have to pay for 2 vehicles as opposed to one if it were 3rd party only.
Maybe this only applies to me as I live in the UK and am a young man (age 22) but still there must be a logical explanation for this.
It would be really nice to hear from someone who has worked for an insurance company in the past, provided you're allowed to disclose this sort of information freely of course.
Edit: one thing I should point out is that the 3rd-party only cover is considerably more expensive when quoting for sporty/powerful cars, even the ones that are little with 2 litre engines.