Been chatting with a buddy about insurance coverage and realized we see things totally different. He goes for the cheaper cosmetic fixes, I prefer paying extra for structural repairs. Curious what most folks here lean towards... quick poll below!
When I first bought my house, I honestly didn't even think about this stuff. Insurance was just another box to tick off on the endless list of "adulting" tasks. But then, about six months in, we had this crazy storm roll through—branches everywhere, shingles flying off roofs, the whole nine yards. My neighbor across the street had some pretty serious structural damage, while mine was mostly cosmetic—just siding and paint scratches.
Anyway, chatting with him afterward was eye-opening. He'd opted for cheaper coverage that prioritized cosmetic fixes because he figured he'd rather have his place looking nice quickly after minor issues. But when it came to structural repairs, he ended up paying a ton out-of-pocket. Meanwhile, I realized I'd accidentally lucked into better structural coverage (thanks to my overly cautious dad who insisted on reviewing my policy before I signed anything... thanks Dad).
It got me thinking though—what's really more important? Sure, cosmetic stuff matters; nobody wants their house looking shabby. But if something major happens, like foundation cracks or roof damage, that's way scarier (and pricier) to me than chipped paint or dented gutters.
I guess I'm leaning toward structural coverage now because it feels safer long-term. Cosmetic fixes seem easier to handle yourself or save up for gradually. But maybe that's just me being overly cautious again? Curious how others see it... maybe I'm missing something obvious here.
