Tom in NO
Topic Author
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:34 am

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
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:14 am

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.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:20 am

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.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:25 am

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
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:38 am

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.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
PSA53
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:46 am

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.
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:52 am

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
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Ins

Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:38 am

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!!!!!
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:28 pm

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.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
NeilYYZ
Posts: 2443
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 12:55 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:07 pm

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.
It may be too early to drink scotch... But it is NEVER too early to think about it...
 
ArmitageShanks
Posts: 3736
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:30 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:14 pm

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.
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 2:17 pm

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
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:24 pm

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
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 8:37 pm

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?
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:04 pm

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?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:46 pm

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
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Nordair
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:36 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:02 pm

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.
"It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda." - Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:26 pm

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

So that is the recipe for resurrection...  scratchchin 
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Nordair
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:36 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:49 pm

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.
"It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda." - Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short
 
Derico
Posts: 4206
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 1999 9:14 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:47 am

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
 
Tom in NO
Topic Author
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 1:46 am

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
 
AsstChiefMark
Posts: 10465
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:14 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:03 am

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

Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Red tail...Damned MSP...Red tail...Red tail
 
deltagator
Posts: 6170
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:56 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:09 am

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."
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:11 am

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
 
Tom in NO
Topic Author
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:17 am

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
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:20 am

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 house insured for $500,000 in the Marina district of San Francisco — a neighborhood built on unstable fill from the bay — costs $2,400 a year to insure through the California Earthquake Authority, with a $75,000 deductible.

I am a homeowner in Los Angeles. My house was built in the 1920s, and has survived numerous earthquakes (raised foundation on solid bedrock is one reason).

I don't have earthquake insurance simply because the deductible would potentially be so large, that by the time insurance kicked in it would cover relatively little.

Especially at the prices they are quoting!

I think it is a faulty assumption to say that people who don't buy earthquake insurance are going to depend on the federal government. There are many like myself who have done the cost/benefit analysis and have concluded it is not worth it. I will not depend on the federal government. I will rebuild (if necessary) on my own.

Also, please realize that quite a number of people in California live nowhere near where significant earthquakes are likely to occur. San Diego, Sacramento, and much of the northern 1/3 of the state are much less likely to see significant shaking than LA or SF. Perhaps they should have done a percentage of people with earthquake insurance who live in high-risk zones?
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Ins

Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:28 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 23):
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?

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, while I could afford it, I donated directly. This will be the case again as soon as I don't need every cent I have.

I define a "victim" as a person who has lost some of his/her belongings due to a foreseeable or unforseeable natural disaster. Telling people "Hey, you don't have to live on a fault ine/in a hurricane area/near a river so why should you get help?" doesn't solve anything, especially if tousands or even millions of people have been living in that areas for hundreds of years.

That person is aided as soon as the first cent (or the first brick, whichever you choose) arrives, generally defining the "end" of aid is impossible. It may be necessary to help victims for years, others may be just fine after a month or two. People who did have insurance should of course be awarded in some way, say by lower taxes for a few years, but establishing fairness that pleases everyone is again impossible. I don't want things to be perfect - they can't be - but I would definitely like people to show good will, common sense and most importantly to do whatever helps others the most.

Lastly: all of this is not about rebuilding private swimming pools and 500 m² homes with public money, but about giving disaster-struck people (not just "tax-paying citizens") a place to live and, if possible, one to work. The frills can be left for later.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
PSA53
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 3:42 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 12):
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).

Damn! How could I forget that one.Thanks for the update
correction.
Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:14 am

Quoting Nordair (Reply 16):
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.

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 wrong with your position. If your father signed a contract agreeing to certain terms, why shouldn't he (or is estate) be held to it? Just as it would be wrong for the insurer to unilaterally change the terms of the contract after the fact, why should the insured have that power?

Contracts are agreements between multiple parties to be bound by certain terms. It doesn't seem out of line for one party to attempt to protect its financial interest.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
Nordair
Posts: 1080
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:36 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:28 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 28):
First of all I am sorry for your loss.


No you are not. You possess neither a heart nor a soul.

Quoting Pope (Reply 28):
Doesn't your post illustrate exactly what is wrong with your position. If your father signed a contract agreeing to certain terms, why shouldn't he (or is estate) be held to it? Just as it would be wrong for the insurer to unilaterally change the terms of the contract after the fact, why should the insured have that power?

Contracts are agreements between multiple parties to be bound by certain terms. It doesn't seem out of line for one party to attempt to protect its financial interest.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 
"It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda." - Right Rev. Dr. Peter Short
 
bushpilot
Posts: 1674
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:37 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:40 am

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
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.

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 can understand to a point. It is the insurance companies who reap the rewards of that legislation. Insurance companies are in business to make money, that is fine, but I would expect payment on my claim as quick as they expect payment on thier policy. They fight and fight every claim possible. Making the process much worse for both parties involved.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:50 pm

Quoting Aircop (Reply 1):
Most of the insurance companies do not want to sell it.

WTF??? Read on Aircop..

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
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.

Along with Banks and Churches! Oh... and now it's safe to add the Pharmecutical Industry.

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 20):
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.

Whatever you do..don't tell that Halls120, Tom.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:32 pm

Quoting Aloges (Reply 15):
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.

Ahhh. European socialism rears its head. I believe in freedom of the individual. The hypothetical scenario you raise ignores the reality that these people chose to have a family. If you choose to have a family when you are having trouble making financial ends meet, why should that become my problem?

As I've said on multiple occassions in multiple topics. In my opinion, much of these problems are avoidable if people take personal responsibility and that oftentimes means foregoing current consumption for future gain. I don't believe that it is my obligation as a member of society to subsidize someone's choice to pursue current consumption at the expense of future financial stability.

You are right when you say that I am now financially well off. But that wasn't always the case. When I started out my fiancee (now my wife) and I really struggled. I remember having a total of $1.40 in our joint checking account.

But we scrimped and saved. We didn't have cable TV, we didn't eat out, we downsized our cars to save money. I took public transportation instead of driving to work in order to save the $120 in parking.

But I continued to pay for our renters insurance, life insurance, car insurance and health insurance. Not because I wanted to, but because it was the responsible thing to do. We delayed having children until we were able to provide for them in a manner that they deserved.

I'm not saying that my way is the right way. I completely support other's rights to choose a different course in their life, but please don't ask me to be financially responsible for the decision they make. I don't get a veto over where they spend their money - so don't make me accountable if they spend it foolishly.

Quoting Aloges (Reply 15):
Ah, the great concept of charity striking again.

You're mixing too different issues. Charity is voluntary. Taxation is not.

I'll be happy to compare my charitable giving to anyone's. My wife and I consider charitable giving to be of the utmost importance in our lives. We feel blessed and fortunate to have what we have and feel that it is our obligation to help those less fortunate than us. However, we choose where the money goes. I've seen too many people claim poverty just to then walk around with $100 tennis shoes and Ipods.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
767Lover
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 6:32 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Ins

Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:54 pm

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 20):
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.

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 13:55:13]

[Edited 2006-03-24 13:55:28]
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:12 pm

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.

They can, and they should. First of all, your little corner insurance company does not stand alone. Their insurance policies are themselves insured by the major reinsurance companies like Munich Re. They have the reserves necessary to pay for something like New Orleans.

I would suggest that the government should not give any aid to people who do not get flood insurance when they live in a flood plain, or quake insurance when they live on top of a know fault line.

People should be responsible for their decisions. What kind of stupid idiot will put himself into debt, buy himself a $500,000 house in LA and not insure it? If you loose it, you deserve it. Buy a $400,000 home instead, and the savings you get from the lower mortgage you use it to pay for proper insurance.

If, on the outside chance that a disaster overwhelms the financial resources of the insurance companies, the government may consider financial aid to the insurance company, which would have to be repaid.

Quoting Derico (Reply 3):
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.

I used to work in the insurance industry, and you are partially correct. The titles and summaries of insurance policies are misleading, and lead people to believe that they are covered for something when they are not, or at least not completely. As a client, you MUST take the time and read the fine print before you sign. Everything can be insured, if you know to ask. Jenifer Lopez insured the shape of her ass, for Christ's sake!!! Dump the insurance you don't need, and take the options you do. When I advised people in insurance, it was EXTREMELY rare, like 1 in 100, that I had a client who was well insured. Nearly all had double insurance on some things and none at all on other things. Very frequently, I could get my clients more complete coverage without them having to pay anything more than before, simply with a little editing.

Of course, you have to watch out for unscrupulous insurance agents. It's important to get referals and get an advisor you trust.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Sat Mar 25, 2006 3:57 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 34):
People should be responsible for their decisions. What kind of stupid idiot will put himself into debt, buy himself a $500,000 house in LA and not insure it? If you loose it, you deserve it. Buy a $400,000 home instead, and the savings you get from the lower mortgage you use it to pay for proper insurance.

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 deductibles are ridiculous. A "$500,000" house does not COST $500,000 to rebuild. $500,000 is the market value of the land, house, neighborhood, etc etc.

If it costs, say $150,000 to rebuild your house, and the deductible is over $75,000, and you are paying thousands of $$$ in premiums for who knows how long, why buy insurance in the first place?

After the Northridge earthquake, there were so many examples of insurance companies finding ANY excuse not to pay, that it became a real dis-incentive to actually trust that insurance companies will do what they say.

Just save your money and rebuild yourself.
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:19 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 35):
Just save your money and rebuild yourself.

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:01 am

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 35):
The HUGE deductibles are ridiculous. A "$500,000" house does not COST $500,000 to rebuild. $500,000 is the market value of the land, house, neighborhood, etc etc.

If it costs, say $150,000 to rebuild your house, and the deductible is over $75,000, and you are paying thousands of $$$ in premiums for who knows how long, why buy insurance in the first place?

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, or you've been dealing with scammers.

Here, home insurance is based on the cost of rebuilding the house pretty much as it was, including removal of debris. Deductables are in the $5,000 or $10,000 range, for the most part. The value of the land or the neighborhood have absolutely nothing to do with it. The insurance's job is simply to rebuild your house as it was.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:02 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
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, or you've been dealing with scammers.

A little from column A and a little from column B.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:08 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 37):
Here, home insurance is based on the cost of rebuilding the house pretty much as it was, including removal of debris. Deductables are in the $5,000 or $10,000 range, for the most part. The value of the land or the neighborhood have absolutely nothing to do with it. The insurance's job is simply to rebuild your house as it was.

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 rebuilding cost (which is obviously much less than the sales price of a house).

Unfortunately, as the article indicated, the deductibles are SO huge, that it makes earthquake insurance somewhat pointless. Given that most homes are built with earthquake building codes in mind, you could spend all that money for earthquake insurance, and the potential damage may not even cover the deductible!
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15207
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: 86% Of CA Homeowners Don't Have Earthquake Insuran

Sat Mar 25, 2006 7:21 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 34):
I would suggest that the government should not give any aid to people who do not get flood insurance when they live in a flood plain, or quake insurance when they live on top of a know fault line.

People should be responsible for their decisions. What kind of stupid idiot will put himself into debt, buy himself a $500,000 house in LA and not insure it? If you loose it, you deserve it. Buy a $400,000 home instead, and the savings you get from the lower mortgage you use it to pay for proper insurance.

Responsibility, what a concept. It'll never work.
E pur si muove -Galileo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Hillis, jpetekyxmd80, wingman and 10 guests