Home
Where I live, about an hour from San Francisco, you have to think about getting earthquake insurance. I've always had it. But I looked into it again for our new house because the insurance is absurdly pricey. I learned, to my surprise, that most people in earthquake territory don't buy earthquake insurance. This made me wonder who the bigger fools were.

There are two popular schools of thought. One is that your house is (often) your biggest asset, and you can't take a chance of losing it. If you live in earthquake country, the odds of a Big One are high. Therefore, if you can afford the insurance, but can't afford to lose your home, you insure. And if you are only buying relief from your own worries, that's worth something too.

The other school of thought says that earthquake insurance is so pricey, and the deductibles are so high, there are only two realistic outcomes after the Big One:
  1. The earthquake damage is less than your deductible.
  2. The damage everywhere is so bad that your insurance company can't pay
Your earthquake insurance would only be useful in the event that your home was destroyed while your neighbors' homes were fine. You have to ask yourself what special risk your home has. If it was built recently, the answer is probably not much risk at all. In fact, I've never heard of a new home in the suburbs being destroyed by an earthquake. How do you calculate the odds of something that has never happened?

You could squirrel away a lot of savings by not paying for earthquake insurance for 30 years. That could add up to six figures. You have to include that money in your calculation when you compare how much you would lose if a quake smites your house.

Few companies offer earthquake insurance. That's a big red flag, since the business model mostly involves taking huge amounts of money from people and giving them nothing in return. I assume most insurers stay out of that field because they know that if there were massive earthquake losses, they would have bigger problems than a bad fiscal quarter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Warren Buffett's insurance companies offer earthquake coverage. That means a lot of people who know more than you about insurance believe that Insurance companies can't even protect themselves if a big earthquake hits.

I give you a final data point before asking your opinion. We had a little 4.2 quake a few weeks ago. The neighbors felt a good wiggle in their homes. Our home, which has all the latest government-required anti-earthquake engineering, didn't move at all.

Would you buy earthquake insurance if you lived in California and your home was relatively new?

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +8
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 11, 2010
For all of you people who are worried that when the Big One arrives, your insurance company won't be able to pay, I recommend that you take a gander at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance (for a start).
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2010
Somewhere in the equation you also have to add in the probability that, if your house is destroyed in an Earthquake, you're buried under it with ceiling beams through your torso and can't file an insurance claim anyway.

I think squirrelling the money into an emegency fund is a better option, by the time you cover all your bases and pay for fire insurance, flood insurance, tornado insurance, earthquake insurance, termite insurance etc, you could have bought a nice back-up house-boat.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 8, 2010
also. if its big the pols will make the feds pay.
 
 
Feb 8, 2010
Where you live, your house is not your biggest asset. The LAND that your house is on is the biggest asset.
 
 
Feb 7, 2010
We live a few blocks from you, Scott. Although our house is not new, we chose not to waste the money on the quake insurance. We figure it only would cover damage to the house, and we are far more likely to have damage to the pool (we back to a hill). We're in the camp of "if the big one hits, insurance won't be able to pay, declare state of emergency time."

A final note, we lived in Rio Del Mar during the Loma Prieta quake, and were a few !$%*! from ground zero (which was in Forest of Nisene Marks, the epicenter). Our house was old, but came through pretty well because we were on solid rock instead of fill. I worry more about the type of land we're on that about how well the house is built.
 
 
Feb 5, 2010
If I were Scott Adams, I definitely would not buy Earthquake insurance (that is
presuming that Scott Adams is rich enough to buy another house if the current
one is lost).

Currently I don't buy collision on my cars for the same reason. If I wreck one,
I take the loss. If I don't wreck, I keep more money. Since I can afford to take
the loss in the event of a wreck, I figure the economics will tend in my favor.

I probably would not buy earthquake even if I weren't rich. You voluntarily hand
over large sums of money, and then if a big earthquake strikes, you have to beg
to get it back and hope they don't play any games (e.g. your house caught on
fire during the earthquake, we don't cover fire).
 
 
Feb 5, 2010
Above average intelligence? Don't let the ads fool you.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 5, 2010
Come on folks, surely the dilbert.com readers have above average intelligence.

The implication that insurance companies calculate as best as they can what future payouts may be based on risk and statistics, and then charge customers more than needed to just cover those payouts, hence making a (*gasp*) profit, falls under the heading of "duh". Companies are supposed to be profitable. That's not a scam - a scam involves misrepresenting something to make off with (usually) your money. Insurance companies could be guilty of that like any other business, but I don't think it's the norm.

When you buy food at a restaurant or grocery store, or put gas in your car, or go to the movies etc. etc., someone's making a profit. That's kinda the reason those goods and services are being provided, isn't it?

I would assume most of you get up in the morning to go work for a company or business (whether you own it or someone else), in exchange for a paycheck - the bigger the better, most people find. Seems normal to me. I'm not sure why insurance companies would be expected to provide service and carry risk in exchange for absolutely nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

As far as the question of whether or not earthquake insurance is a good idea, I don't know. I generally agree with what some have already said, you should weigh the risk of loss and how much you would benefit (or not) from the insurance policy if this occurs, versus what it will cost you over time, and what you can afford (to lose and to pay). In the case of earthquake insurance, I would just rather not live in a place with a significant risk (or maybe certainty even, given a long enough time frame) of a disastrous quake. Either way, with something like a $75,000 deductible, I think I would pass.

It is also entirely possible that Dogbert concocted the whole earthquake insurance scheme, in which case you should run for the hills. Just not the ones over fault lines.
 
 
Feb 3, 2010
> Chairman wrote: "I live about 12 or 15 !$%*! from your house, in Lafayette."

That's funny. The filter software actually makes posts sound racier than intended. I'd walk a !$%*! for a camel. I really loved !$%*! O'Brien on Star Trek TNG.
 
 
Feb 3, 2010
And why is your system censoring the word for 5280 feet? Is there some new sex act I need to know about?
 
 
Feb 3, 2010
I live about 12 or 15 !$%*! from your house, in Lafayette. Wouldn't dream of buying the insurance. Not only is it grossly overpriced with absurd deductibles, but if there was a really big quake FEMA and the federales would be here with checkbooks flashing.

That's what happened after Loma Prieta. I think my mother made a profit on that quake.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 3, 2010
I live in Southern California in a 12 year old house and currently don't have earthquake insurance, but I do plan to buy it this year. It will cost me under $300 a year to protect my $500K home. The 2 major factors that influence my decision are 1) the fact that I can afford the $300/yr. but not the cost of replacing my home, and 2) scientists seem pretty sure that a very damaging quake (think Haiti) will hit California in under 30 years. As I plan to live in my home until I die, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 3, 2010
Your thoughts are well made. In my region the Central US has a lower risk but like CA major earthquakes a far fewer but could devestate the region making purchase of these riders even more questionable and like CA the deductable level is also high.

In your post you mentioned your home is new. CA will soon have 75 years of seismic building codes since the passage of the Field Act. Following these codes does not prevent all damage but it like seat belts and air bags provides a significant reduction of loss.

The insurance industry left the flood market a long time ago because the risks of loss is so high. FEMA's flood insurance program steped in to provide protection but also to mitigate future community loss through zoning and common sense public policy to move homes and business out of flood prone regions.

The California State Geologic Survey, California Sesimic Safey Commission and organizations such as ABAG have contributed in efforts to reduce seismic risk for your state. Does it work? Consider the number of deaths from Loma Prieta and Haiti. Your former governor and US president who say government is part of the problem are only correct when they do nothing and let the market decide.
 
 
Feb 2, 2010
Insurance is a losing proposition. They estimate your odds of making a claim, convert that into the cost per year that would result in breaking even over the long term (i.e. your "fair" premium), then they add their desired profit per year, and charge you the result.

You should only buy insurance if...
(a) you can't afford to lose, i.e. if being in a position to make a claim and not getting a payout would be financially disastrous; or
(b) your risk is substantially higher than the insurance company thinks it is, i.e. your claims are statistically likely to be more than your premium (remembering their profit margin).

Obviously in the case of earthquake insurance it is going to be likely that (a) may bite you - if your home is damaged enough for it to be worth claiming, you may not get your payout because the company may go bankrupt.
Given that your home's position is known, the company can make a very good estimate of the relative risk, so it is going to be difficult to beat the odds and make option (b) worthwhile, unless you are skirting fraud through nondisclosure of relevant facts.
 
 
Feb 2, 2010
Is there a hill poised nearby waiting to roll over your house? Is someone on top of it watering it? Do you have a neighbor or lots of neighbors who water their lawns WAY too much? All those can contribute.
Your zoning board can tell you what earthquake risk zone the area is in. I assume it's high. How much rebar was put in your foundation? Are you sure they put it in?
 
 
Feb 2, 2010
sounds like the healthcare model, if more poeple paid in, the risk would be spread further. Perhaps if it wasmandataed, you could have more companies willing to take the rsik.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 2, 2010
If you are building a house... why not make it really earthquake proof. There is also the moral hazard problem that if it is really bad the government will step in.
 
 
Feb 2, 2010
I guess it would all depend on how close my home was to the fault line? A new house, 100 m i l e s away from the nearest active fault line, I probably wouldn't bother, just sock away money in an investment scheme or something and build some really strong doorways. The land is normally more valuable than the house anyway, that's why a house in the city costs a million, and the exact same house built 2 hours outside the city cost a hundred thousand. If the big one hits however, that nice bungalow in the suburbs of Bakersfield could become the new beachfront house in Malibu. A slight miscalculation however, and your house becomes a nice marine habitat.
 
 
Feb 2, 2010
Throw in the likelihood that if "no one has insurance" the State and Feds will concoct some sort of bailout for the unfortunate victims.
 
 
Feb 2, 2010
I never bought insurance. I suffered a very nearby magnitude 4.8 quake, literally less than 5 !$%*! from the epicenter. It splashed a foot of water out of my pool and cracked some stucco. Total cost of repairs was less than a single year's insurance premium.

The question is "What do you really know about the soils under your house?". If there is some latent problem that was not known when your house was built, it could fall down. That seems like a much bigger risk in other parts of the US than in CA. In CA there are "test shocks" every year. If your house gets a big crack in a small quake, you might have a problem. Once a house passes the "shock test" I can't imagine continuing to bet against it.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog