Collison and Comprehnsive Auto Coverage - Why Link Them?

I’ve been shopping for auto insurance online recently, and many companies (not all) do not offer the option of getting collision insurance without also getting comprehensive coverage. (In a perhaps over-simplified nutshell, collision coverage is for when you are at fault for damage to your own car, in an accident you caused, for example, and comprehensive covers fire, theft, vandalism, and most other damages.)

Since I am a single, under 25 male (read: reckless, crazy, irresponsible driver who is singlehandedly destroying the safety of our nation’s roads) and therefore subject to extremely high premium rates, I really can’t afford to pay for comprehensive - but I do want collision.

Does anyone know why insurance companies do not allow you to get collision without comprehensive? I do not understand why they are linked - is it somehow related to cutting down on fraudulent claims? Or is it something else? Thanks.

Any comment from me on why a company would offer combined Comp & collision would be a WAG…which I’ll gleefully rpovide should a proper answer not appear.

BUT one correction to the OP: The price of Collision is affected by the driver and is generally more expensive than Comprehensive–which is usually invoked in the absence of a driver. What the coverages do, however, you described correctly.

And if you run into an animal or a rock hits your windshield–that’s comp too.

OK pal, yer about to fall off the front page and into oblivion, so I’ll give you my WAG.

Something else.

Both of the coverages are essentially the same in the respect that they deal with paying you for damage to YOUR CAR. The principle differences to YOU are the specific perils which cause the losses and what your deductible will be. By lumping both coverages into the same category, call it Physical Damage (insurance companies call it “L” for some odd reason) then you the consumer don’t have to worry as much about, “is this covered? what’s the deductible for that? etc.” Also, the insurance company doesn’t have to differentiate between surchargeable collision losses and nonsurchargeable comprehensive losses; nor would they need to keep clear actuarial tables regarding the probablities of different sorts of losses, which might save some underwriting overhead.

I really have no certainty about the above and wasn’t able to get very far with an internet search. BUT, choice is always a good thing. If a company does not offer you the choices you want, ignore 'em!

Is it possible that your insurance company won’t let you not get comprehensive coverage because you’re not the title-holder of your vehicle. If you don’t own the vehicle outright, I thought that full comprehensive coverage was required, so as to protect the interests of the lien-holder. The bank doesn’t want you to not take comprehensive coverage and then be left holding the bag when a tree falls on your car and you don’t have the means to pay for it, and they no longer have collateral on the loan.

I was under the impression that once you held the title to the car (i.e. you’ve paid off your loan), you could drop comprehensive coverage and go with collision only.