Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran  
User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 32
Posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Having spent half my life living in the LA area (and sometimes wishing my wife was into moving back), and most of the other half in the New Orleans area I have no "glass house" issues regarding posting the linked article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...24.DTL&hw=earthquake&sn=002&sc=892

It appears that 86 percent of all California homeowners do not carry earthquake insurance. I'll quote the followiing from the article:

"Californians have built vast metropolises atop seismic faults, but 86 percent of the state's homeowners have no quake insurance, a proportion that has crept upward as memories of past quakes fade. The number of uninsured was about 65 percent in 1996.

"It's a game of Russian roulette," said Norman Williams, an assistant deputy commissioner at the state Department of Insurance."


Also.....

"In the San Francisco Bay area, where geologists project a 62 percent probability of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the next 26 years, Hurricane Katrina has had a dual effect on homeowners.

Some Californians called their insurance agents and signed up for quake coverage. But for many others, the billions of dollars in federal aid pouring into the Gulf Coast merely bolstered a sense that the government would come to the rescue after a big earthquake."


Interesting to say the least.....the expectation of federal aid comment rings volumes.

Tom at MSY


"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAircop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Most of the insurance companies do not want to sell it. It is very costly and isn't their entitlement that the government bail them out when their building comes crashing down? In the SF World Series quake of 1989 a number of houses came down in SF and then caught fire, and the courts ruled that the fire insurance would covered the loss. The insurance companies were to happy with that one either.

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

What good is a society if it refuses to aid victims of a natural disaster? Do people really think insurance companies and the free market can rectify all the damage done by a huge earthquake? No way.


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Why do insurances companies exist anyways? In every corner of the world, no matter what the coverage, they always refuse to cover for damages and bring up obscure clauses and purposefully esotheric explanations as to why the damage 'does not apply' to their coverage.

Insurance companies are the biggest scam, and the biggest legal crooks in the history of modern economics.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):

Sad, but true... several months of lawyer's letters and a couple hundred Euros are testimony, at least in my family's case.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinePsa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

In April,I'm going to put it on the house for the first time, despite
the big deductible.I believe a big shaker is overdue since the 89' Bay area
and 87' Whittier Narrows.I'm also a little concerned about my front patio supports.

[Edited 2006-03-23 01:47:32]


Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1421 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 4):
Sad, but true... several months of lawyer's letters and a couple hundred Euros are testimony, at least in my family's case

Thankfully I have not had a personal experience battleling insurance. But I have heard more than enough stories of natural disaster, work-related, medical, or automobile insurance to unfortunately lead me to that conclusion.

If it was up to me I wouldn't give a cent to them.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3375 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
Insurance companies are the biggest scam, and the biggest legal crooks in the history of modern economics.

 checkmark 

Auto insurance is the worst by far though especially in Ontario  banghead .



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Well, I live 70 miles up the road from Galveston, but last years near miss was enough for me. We purchased flood insurance even though we do not live in a flood plain nor has any water, in any of the numerous tropical storms to cross the area, ever gotten into this home. It just seems the safe thing to do. Only cost me 250 dollars for the year and provides me with more than the replacement value of the home and belongings. I think if I was going to live in CA I would do everything possible to try and obtain it. I know it's probably expensive as hell but it would at least bring some peace of mind.

User currently offlineNeilYYZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1392 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 7):
Auto insurance is the worst by far though especially in Ontario

No kidding, my dad was going to sell me his 2003 Camry at a greatly reduced price, but then I called the insurance company and inquired as to how much the rate would be, that put an end to that sale. What they wanted per year would have broke me.

Back to the topic at hand, quake insurance is a good idea if you live there in my opinion, although I'm sure it's just not within the financial means for a lot of people. It's sad, because in the end, the government might help out a little bit, but they can't afford to re-build an entire city of residential homes. Sort of a catch 22, people can't afford it and think that the government might bail them out, but the government can't afford it and figure that the insurance companies will cover the cost, but the insurance companies make the premiums high so people can't afford it. An earthquake in that area is really a big lose lose situaiton.


User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3625 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

Insurance companies should be able to deny coverage to whoever they want.

They are private companies and if the risk is bigger than the reward, then so be it.

If I lived in California I don't think I could justify the expence of it. It would probably be the same cost rebuilding my house as it would be to insure it totally.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1390 times:

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 10):
Insurance companies should be able to deny coverage to whoever they want.

Yes of course, but they should also keep up their end of the bargain if they decided to offer coverage.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26487 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1379 times:

Quoting Psa53 (Reply 5):
In April,I'm going to put it on the house for the first time, despite
the big deductible.I believe a big shaker is overdue since the 89' Bay area
and 87' Whittier Narrows.I'm also a little concerned about my front patio supports.

You left out '94 Northridge (much, much stronger than Whittier Narrows) and '92 Landers/Big Bear Lake (Landers was a 7.3, much stronger than the Loma Prieta/San Francisco quake, BBL was a 5.1 on the same day). The main problem is, most insurers (notably Farmers) wont write Earthquake policies in CA since Northridge and we had an incredibly corrupt Insurance Commissioner in Chuck Quackenbush, and there is no national earthquake insurance program.

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
Insurance companies are the biggest scam, and the biggest legal crooks in the history of modern economics.

Precisely

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 8):
Only cost me 250 dollars for the year and provides me with more than the replacement value of the home and belongings. I think if I was going to live in CA I would do everything possible to try and obtain it. I know it's probably expensive as hell but it would at least bring some peace of mind.

The National Flood Insurance Program offers a federal subsidy for flood coverage. There is not a similar program for earthquakes

Quoting ArmitageShanks (Reply 10):
Insurance companies should be able to deny coverage to whoever they want.

And state insurance commissioners have the right to tell them that they can't write a single policy in the state, for any kind of insurance, if they refuse



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

Quoting Tom in NO (Thread starter):
Interesting to say the least.....the expectation of federal aid comment rings volumes.

That was precisely the issue I was trying to raise when complaining about all the federal aid going to NOLA. If the government creates the expectation that it will serve as an ex post facto insurer, why would anyone then take proactive steps to protect themselves. Right now I pay a ton of money for insurance in Florida on my home. Why should I? Given the fact that the government seems to be willing to step in and cover my losses even though I could have protected myself, aren't they socializing me to be irresponsible?

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
What good is a society if it refuses to aid victims of a natural disaster? Do people really think insurance companies and the free market can rectify all the damage done by a huge earthquake? No way.

You get what you pay for. Anyone who's lived through a big natural disaster and been properly insured knows that high quality insurance is a must. My family lost 2/3rds of our home in Hurricane Andrew and we got every last penny from our insurer - State Farm. They did exactly what they were supposed to. Now State Farm is a premium product. It is much more expensive than competing policies but provides superior protection. If you want to pay less up front, their are cheaper alternatives, but then you need to be ready for less service and more hassles if it comes time to make a claim.

The sad truth about insurance is that it's one of the few products that you pay for and hope that you never use.

As for society's role in natural disasters, what obligation do you place upon members of a society to be responsible for foreseeable losses? If you live in a hurricane zone, a hurricane is a foreseeable event. If you live in an earthquake zone and earthquake is foreseeable. At some point people themselves have to decide to forego current consumption and spend that money on protecting their futures. If not, all we are doing is punishing those who are financially responsible by affording those who are not the same protections that these people get without any cost.

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
Insurance companies are the biggest scam, and the biggest legal crooks in the history of modern economics.

Brilliant statement. Care to provide some justification for this?


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1368 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
The National Flood Insurance Program offers a federal subsidy for flood coverage. There is not a similar program for earthquakes

Really? Wow, I never would have figured that out on my own, thanks for the help.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
And state insurance commissioners have the right to tell them that they can't write a single policy in the state, for any kind of insurance, if they refuse

Then guess what, no insurance will be available or the insurance that is will be just that much higher because the state is creating an artificial monopoly. Here in Texas homeowners insurance is a lot higher than it ought to be in part due to the mold problem. There are several insurance companies that have decided not to write homeowner policies because of it. They still sell life, auto, and health which I see no reason that they should not be allowed to do. Why limit competition in all areas simply because a company or companies see to much risk in one area. What about a company that only writes auto policies? Should they be forced to sell homeowners insurance as well?


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1363 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
You get what you pay for.

Ah, the great concept of charity striking again.  Wink This "you get what you pay for" maxim may work for most ordinary services, purchases and dealings, but it's fundamentally flawed in the case of national disaster.

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
Anyone who's lived through a big natural disaster and been properly insured knows that high quality insurance is a must.

So what about people who live in, say, Southern Florida and could afford either hurricane insurance for their houses or good "proper" education for their children because the four jobs the two parents work simply don't pay enough? They'll be damned if they do and doomed if they don't, right?

See, judging by your above post, you're a well-off citizen who's able to afford all kinds of insurance. Good for you! But please don't forget about those who can't.

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
As for society's role in natural disasters, what obligation do you place upon members of a society to be responsible for foreseeable losses? If you live in a hurricane zone, a hurricane is a foreseeable event. If you live in an earthquake zone and earthquake is foreseeable.

So what about national economies? Isn't it highly irresponsible to allow the world's fifth largest economy (if California still is such) to concentrate in one state that's one big earthquake zone?  Wink



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineNordair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
Insurance companies are the biggest scam, and the biggest legal crooks in the history of modern economics.

Brilliant statement. Care to provide some justification for this?

After my father's death there was of course no insurance payment in the case of suicide. However, I did not expect my father's insurance company to bombard me with letters AFTER his death informing me that he had signed a contract and that the insurance premiums were to continue to be paid for the remainder of the year. Paying LIFE insurance premiums on a CORPSE? Sounds a bit of a scam to me.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 42
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1356 times:

Quoting Nordair (Reply 16):
Paying LIFE insurance premiums on a CORPSE?

So that is the recipe for resurrection...  scratchchin 



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineNordair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 17):
So that is the recipe for resurrection... scratchchin


If only!  Smile

They didn't get a penny more because they had no ground on which to stand. But it makes one wonder what of others. A widow who is so griefstruck and actually believes the insurance company is correct and feels compelled to continue paying life insurance premiums for her dead husband because he had a "contract".

It's opportunism at it's worst and it is sickening.


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4304 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1348 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 13):
Brilliant statement. Care to provide some justification for this?

Look, there are way too many stories out there to show that insurance companies will try in the most incredible ways, and thru multiple excuses, to undercut and excuse themselves from their payment obligations.

If you really believe insurance companies are honorable enterprises that have never tried to cheat in their policies, promising a certain coverage and then making excuses as to why they don't have to cover it when something does happen, then it's your right to believe you will also find the Shire, Mordor and the Elves when you head to New Zealand.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

Quoting NeilYYZ (Reply 9):
Back to the topic at hand, quake insurance is a good idea if you live there in my opinion, although I'm sure it's just not within the financial means for a lot of people.

Precisely why I won't bash those down here who, for that very reason, are unable to maintain flood insurance.

So what are the alternatives for that group of people? Stay here and hope for the best; or spend money to move somewhere where flood insurance protection isn't an issue.....in which case they could afford to pay flood insurance and stay here.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
What good is a society if it refuses to aid victims of a natural disaster? Do people really think insurance companies and the free market can rectify all the damage done by a huge earthquake?

.....or by a major hurricane?

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
No way.

Agreed.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

I don't have hurricane or earthquake insurance. But I have tornado insurance.



User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
What good is a society if it refuses to aid victims of a natural disaster? Do people really think insurance companies and the free market can rectify all the damage done by a huge earthquake?

No, we don't expect insurance to fix it all. We've seen through the efforts after Katrina what we can do as a nation and society for the affected folks. But when you have a house below sea level or sitting on a major fault line (I'm looking at you East Bay!) and you don't buy the appropriate insurance then you have to take the majority of the blame when disaster hits. In the case of Katrina there was a failure across all levels of government to prepare for and support after the hurricane but those folks still knew they were sitting below sea level with a Category 4 storm bearing down on them and the levees were only rated to hold back a Category 3. The same concept goes for California where folks are building on the hills of the East Bay are like mad and it sits right on top of the Fremont Fault. When that fault lets go (and it will) then how is it our responsibility to make them whole again? It isn't. We can assist and what not but they ultimately take the responsibility for not having insurance while their house sits on an active fault or hurricane zone.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
we had an incredibly corrupt Insurance Commissioner in Chuck Quackenbush

What! A corrupt politician in California? Say it isn't so! Are they being imported from Louisiana?  biggrin 



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17491 posts, RR: 45
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
What good is a society if it refuses to aid victims of a natural disaster?

How do you aid them? Who do you aid? How much aid do you give? When is the victim effectively "aided"? How do you define a "victim"? How much should you set aside in advance for aid? Do you aid someone who chose to live on the rim of a volcano? What about in an area prone to mudslides? Or hurricanes? Wildfires? Someone that chooses to build a house on the beach? Where do you draw the line?

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
Do people really think insurance companies and the free market can rectify all the damage done by a huge earthquake?

The government's record isn't so hot.

[Edited 2006-03-23 18:13:24]


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 32
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1325 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 23):
The government's record isn't so hot.

.....and neither is the insurance industry's. I've been fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough as the case may be, to have been highly involved in meetings, negotiations, inspection tours, etc, with both FEMA and insurance agencies here at the airport in the 6-odd months since Katrina. While the vast majority of the people I meet with are friendly, well-meaning individuals, I have never dealt with two more screwed-up groups of people in my life.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
25 Travelin man : From the article: One homeowner in Oakland will pay $1,468 this year for $306,000 in coverage for his house, with a deductible of nearly $46,000. A ho
26 Aloges : Slow there, Mr. Inquisitor. First of all, I aid by paying taxes that my government has used and will use to help victims of e.g. floodings. Second, w
27 Psa53 : Damn! How could I forget that one.Thanks for the update correction.
28 Pope : First of all I am sorry for your loss. But since you raise the matter as an example, I'll respond to it. Doesn't your post illustrate exactly what is
29 Post contains images Nordair : No you are not. You possess neither a heart nor a soul.
30 Bushpilot : I would concur on this. Firstly one is forced by law in most places to have it. Homeowners and liability coverage for autos is an example. Which I ca
31 BN747 : WTF??? Read on Aircop.. Along with Banks and Churches! Oh... and now it's safe to add the Pharmecutical Industry. Whatever you do..don't tell that Ha
32 Pope : Ahhh. European socialism rears its head. I believe in freedom of the individual. The hypothetical scenario you raise ignores the reality that these p
33 767Lover : Then how would they be able to afford living in Cal in the first place? We have 48 contiguous states. Pick one that's affordable! [Edited 2006-03-24
34 Cfalk : They can, and they should. First of all, your little corner insurance company does not stand alone. Their insurance policies are themselves insured b
35 Travelin man : I don't disagree that people should be responsible for their decisions. But I have to go back to the cost/benefit of earthquake insurance. The HUGE d
36 Pope : But that's not what most people are advocating. Most people are saying, save the money and then ask the government to fund your rebuilding.
37 Cfalk : If what you say is accurate, that means that either the insurance business is seriously disfunctional in the US and needs to be completely reformed,
38 StarAC17 : A little from column A and a little from column B.
39 Travelin man : That is true here in the US. My point was that you do not need $500,000 in coverage for a house that sells for $500,000. You need the to cover the re
40 MaverickM11 : Responsibility, what a concept. It'll never work.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
85% Of CA Homeowners Have No Earthquake Ins. posted Fri Nov 18 2005 15:23:18 by Pope
What Type Of Arguments Do You Have With Neighbours posted Thu Aug 24 2006 11:25:38 by Runway23
Out Of All The Times I Have A Good Chat Discussion posted Wed Aug 2 2006 05:52:50 by Touchdown777
Computer Help: Don't Have MS Office Disk posted Thu Mar 16 2006 03:46:07 by AMSMAN
What Is Up With The People Of CA (Gov Arnold) posted Thu Nov 3 2005 15:59:20 by Matt D
What Kind Of Cellphone Do You Have? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 08:56:14 by Airlinerfreak
What Kind Of Computer Do You Have? posted Sun Mar 13 2005 01:23:16 by Airlinerfreak
What Type Of Dog Do You Have posted Wed Feb 23 2005 17:10:40 by JetJock22
Countries That Don't Have A A.net Member! posted Wed Nov 3 2004 23:24:46 by SQNo1
And Some Of Us Think We Have Bad Days... posted Tue Oct 26 2004 10:45:37 by MxCtrlr