Croatian Resident from California on Earthquake Insurance Policy Back in the USA

One of the many things we have learned in the wake of the devastating 2020 earthquakes in Croatia is how few people have an earthquake insurance policy. Industry experts put the figure at about 85% of homes without an earthquake insurance policy in Croatia. As we saw yesterday in With 85% of Croatian Properties Not Covered for Earthquakes, an Insurance Expert Speaks, of the officially estimated 100 billion kuna earthquake damage of 2020, only 237.5 million kuna had been paid out in November, or 0.2375%. 

One of the responses I had to the article was from a Croatian now retired here, but who lived most of his life in California, a region known for its earthquakes. Here is what he sent me about how the earthquake insurance policy works in California. 

California insisted that, in order to operate in the state, an insurance company must offer (as an option) earthquake coverage. After the Loma Prieta and especially Northridge, companies started pulling out of California rather than sell earthquake coverage. The crisis was resolved by the setting up of a state-backed fund and insurance provision, that was sold through insurance companies.

But it was expensive. It was limited in that it only provided 75% cover and only if you suffered a big loss, many tens of thousands of dollars. And worst of all, if there was a big earthquake and the fund ran out, policyholders who were not affected would be called on to pay more into the fund. Unsurprisingly coverage dropped to negligible levels.

Time passed and more time passed, and there were no devastating earthquakes. Insurance companies’ drive for more income eventually caused some of them to come back into the market. But it is still expensive. Regarding conditions, there were no special requirements for an earthquake to be a particular strength. It had to be an earthquake though – subsidence, landslides and the like, not caused by an earthquake, were not covered. We decided it was not worth the price, as it would have more than doubled our cost. In 23 years we saved probably over $30000, but yes we were taking a risk. Oh and we had to sign a bit of paper every time we renewed, that we had been offered earthquake insurance and declined it.

Another thing unique to CA (maybe to other US states too) is that your mortgage was something you could walk away from, leaving the property to the mortgage holder. Unlike any other loan, they could not come after you for the difference in value, even if the property was destroyed.

CA also had a state insurance commissioner whose job was to make sure companies behaved. He had real teeth and used them

This is an issue which we will be continuing to monitor at TCN. If you have anything to contribute, please contact us at [email protected] Subject Insurance

For the latest news from the Petrinja earthquake, visit the dedicated TCN section. 

If you would like to donate to the earthquake relief efforts, my recommendation is Glas Poduzetnika (Voice of Entrepreneurs) fund – full details here.

 

Subscribe to our newsletter

the fields marked with * are required

Email: *
First name:
Last name:
Gender:	Male Female
Country:
Birthday:	[DD] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 [MM] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [YYYY] 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Please don't insert text in the box below!