Earthquake insurance

[connoisseur series500]

I was talking to my insurance agent the other day, and a third person in the conversation mentioned the fact that Ohio apparently sits in the middle of a fault. I told him that he was on drugs, but he insisted that this was the case. The insurance man (who is also a friend) backed him up on this and pointed out a minor quake that hit the area a few years ago (I was in Thailand at the time.)

I then inquired whether my homeowner's insurance covers for this eventuality and he replie that it did not but I could add it. How much? Something in the range of $62/yr. I thought about it for a few seconds and imagined my house collapsing into a pile of rubble without any insurance to cover the loss. I said, "Add it on!"

I virtually spend $62 every two weeks on cds. Surely, I can afford this rider. But am I just a sucker for a sale?

What do you guys think of earthquake insurance for those of us who don't live in California?

[Matthew]

I was always under the impression that most Californians do not have earthquake insurance. Am I wrong about that? I know I don't have it. At $62.00, heck, why not?

Edited September 30, 2003 by Matthew

[Jim Alfredson]

I wouldn't be surprised if California insurance companies didn't offer earthquake insurance. Too much of a risk.

Lord knows they can't do what they're supposed to do...

[jazzbo]

Re-reading Velikovsky lately I am inclined to think YES DEFINITELY, but then again global catastrophies. . . hardly worth it it will be all ruined anyway, nothing to collect and no one to collect from.

[Quincy]

Parts of Ohio felt the great New Madrid quake so I suppose you are in an area of potential danger. I can't compute whether it should cost you $62 a year, but if you're OK with it that's one less worry in life.

The New Madrid fault is as serious as any in the U.S., and I'd imagine the closer you are to the fault the more expensive the insurance. I'm fairly certain earthquake insurance in the affected parts of California costs a great deal more, and probably isn't considered affordable without a very high deductible. Maybe a CA homeowner will chime in to share his pain.

And as your CDs now have earthquake insurance too I'm sure they'll show their appreciation and sound even better!

[connoisseur series500]

Thanks for the interesting links, Quincy.

I checked out that map and Ohio seems fairly distant from the epicenter. Toledo just makes it into the light green shaded zone. Still, the story I was told was that an earthquake hit Toledo a few years ago and the epicenter was in the Cincinnati area. Is that another fault? Otherwise, why would the epicenter be located there rather than in Missouri?

[connoisseur series500]

I wouldn't be surprised if California insurance companies didn't offer earthquake insurance. Too much of a risk.

Lord knows they can't do what they're supposed to do...

Any comments from Californians on that?

[Quincy]

(connoisseur series500 Posted on Sep 29 2003, 08:39 PM)

Still, the story I was told was that an earthquake hit Toledo a few years ago and the epicenter was in the Cincinnati area.  Is that another fault?  Otherwise, why would the epicenter be located there rather than in Missouri?

I have to be careful as very quickly I'll exceed my level of expertise (a smidgeon > nil) but there are lots of faults of various sizes all over the land. So if they said it was centered under Cincy it must have been.

Here's another map , this time showing all quakes from 1800 to 1983. Though it's hard as hell to read the fine print your area is rather red.

[Dan Gould]

When I moved to St. Louis in the late 80s for Graduate School, I was quite shocked to learn that I was so close to the New Madrid fault and how long it had been since it last slipped significantly. Then they started telling me about how the worst building material in earthquake zones is brick-they just vibrate apart, I guess-and I started noticing all of the brick houses in that town.

I am afraid St. Louis is going to pay the piper someday, just as L.A. will, too.

[connoisseur series500]

While you guys get hurricanes, Dan. Nobody gets off, I guess.

[Dan Gould]

And trailer parks get tornados, so pick your poison.

[connoisseur series500]

Yes, lots of tornadoes around here. We get warnings each year, but so far I haven't seen one.

My house is vulnerable too, Dan; not just trailer parks.

At least we don't have all those creepy crawlies you guys have down there.

[Brad]

$62 appears to relatively cheap to me. It's all a question of how much risk you can afford to tolerate versus what you can afford. Since you probably have a decent collection, not to mention your house and other possessions, I'd go for it. I'd do if it was me.

I don't live in California but because earthquakes are so prevalent and insurance companies don't like to pay out since they're profit making institutions, it's probably very expensive. I'd be surprised if they didn't offer it. It's just that since the likelihood of payout is great, the premiums, accordingly, should be high.

[connoisseur series500]

$62 appears to relatively cheap to me. It's all a question of how much risk you can afford to tolerate versus what you can afford. Since you probably have a decent collection, not to mention your house and other possessions, I'd go for it. I'd do if it was me.

This brings up another point.

I never had my cd collection in mind when I added that coverage. I was thinking of covering structural damage to my home due to earthquakes. I do know enough about insurance law that it is our responsibility to document and photograph our collections if we expect them to be covered for loss or damage. How is the insurance company to know I've got approximately $6,000 in jazz cds or $40,000 in books? No photos or documentations=no coverage.

I also have a Royal Doulton figurine collection which I have documented. Those things have a higher chance of rattling off the shelves or crumbling. Haven't documented anything else. Looks like I've got some work ahead of me.

My insurance philosophy (particularly for homeowner's coverage): we get insurance not with the mentality that we hope to collect from it one day. You'd be surprised how many people think that way. They feel that since they paid in so many dollars over the years that they won't break even until the get an equal amount of dollars back through claims.

The better way is to view insurance as an ongoing expense and hope never to have to collect. For if you do, you will pay through the teeth with more expensive coverage (if you will be covered at all.) Don't make petty claims! You will lose out in the end. There's got to me some serious damage or loss before I pick up the phone to my adjuster. Be warned also that calls of inquiry to your insurance company might be tallied as a "claim" on their computers. Although I have never sold property/casualty insurance, I am licensed to do so. Most of it is still fuzzy to me though!

[ghost of miles]

We're sitting pretty close to the New Madrid here in Bloomington, IN. And we're due--we've been due for some time now.

I remember my ex-girlfriend calling me from California after the '94 quake. She said she woke up at 4 in the morning with bookcases falling on top of her and thought the world was ending.

[Shrdlu]

I got my earthquake insurance in October, 1983, praise God. It's just about my 20th anniversary. (I don't remember the exact day, but that's not necessary.)