With casco, the value question works differently than with home insurance – the payout ceiling for a car is typically its market value at the time of loss, however we "set" the contract. That's precisely why the two extremes hurt differently here: over-insuring is wasted premium, while an under-stated picture is a source of bad decisions.
Property insurance runs on an indemnity principle: the loss is the ceiling. If the car is worth a given amount on the market on the day of the claim, a total-loss payout typically settles around that level – it doesn't become larger just because a higher figure sits in the contract. The extra premium paid for that higher value simply disappears. So the right approach isn't "set it as high as possible", but tracking the real value – and where protecting the purchase price is the goal (a new car), guaranteed asset protection (GAP) is the right tool, not over-insurance.
The opposite mistake is quieter: you mentally write the car down ("it's old now, it's worth nothing"), and as a result skip casco, skip adjusting cover, or skip declaring extras. Meanwhile, the used-car market sometimes moves upward, and equipment carries real value. A distorted picture breeds bad decisions: if you underestimate your car, you also underestimate the real cost of replacing it – and end up taking on risk in the wrong place.
The fix is the same in both directions: once a year, build a realistic picture of value (market listings + equipment list + photos), and review the contract in that light – deductible ratio, scope of cover, add-ons, premium. This is the annual review – if you let me know before the renewal date, I'll carry it out in the same pass as the quote comparison.
Not sure whether your policy's value picture is realistic? book a free 20-minute consultation →
Free of charge, no obligation – by the end you will see your options and the next step clearly.