We seriously doubt it. It is probably safe to say that it is virtually if not actually impossible to have ‘full coverage.’ Notwithstanding that the term is vague (full coverage of what?); it is equally improbable that if you were able to define it that such coverage would be available. Yet we hear the term used all the time by both consumers and insurance professionals. This careless use of the term can have serious implications for an insured and a producer when the misunderstanding results in a coverage denial on a claim.
Unfortunately, we all know what we mean when we say ‘full coverage’ and often, mistakenly, assume that others know what we mean. For example, when several people were asked what ‘full coverage’ meant they all said liability and physical damage and some said comprehensive and collision, yet none said $0 deductible. There was no consensus on the meaning. Also, none clarified if they were restricting this to coverage for a personal auto or if it also included a home or personal property, et cetera. This misuse and misunderstanding of terminology and the resultant unexpected coverage limitations can cause serious financial hardship for the policyholder.
The casual use of this common term causes thoroughly avoidable confusion. The purpose of the insurance policy is to specifically define what is and is not covered. While most of us would not consider reading a policy to be easy or enjoyable, it is critically important to have an understanding of what types of loss are included in coverage. If you have uncertainties or know that there is a very specific insurance coverage you are interested in, please ask your insurance agent for clarification.