MMcD

Actually - no.
Earthquake insurance in CA. is entirely discretionary.
Due to its high deductible (ranges from 10-15%) - fewer than 10% of homeowners opt to carry it.
Instead, we live on borrowed time and

Matt Sabre

Makes sense, kind of like fire insurance not being mandatory up here in the Sierra where forest fires are a major problem.

Pulaski

The risk of collapse or major structural damage caused by an earthquake to well constructed timber frame houses is relatively low. The sheathing keeps them true and square, so you would have to have a earthquake lasting long enough to shake the sheathing off before the was a great liklihood of irreparable structural damage. Of course a minor earthquake can shake the drywall enough to crack the interior walls, or damage exterior masonry.

MMcD

Isn't FIRE one of the principal coverage risks provided and standard in *all* California Homeowners Policies?

Matt Sabre

It's offered but it costs a fortune in you live up in the foothills where major forest fires are annual events. Many opt to gamble and go without.

The irony is that most of those folks are anti-govt. types who go up there to get away from those nasty feds, yet when a major fire occurs they expect the firefighters to come in and save them...paid for by the rest of us.

MMcD

But what I'm saying (in my post above) - is that I believe it's *standard* (not optional).

In fact - I believe Mortgage Lenders require such continued coverage as a condition for fulfilling one's obligation as the mortgagee.

And each year - when the Homeowner's Policy comes up for renewal - proof of current Homeowner's Insurance (which includes mandatory fire coverage) must be submitted to the Mortgage Company - who know and keep track of the date when the old policy expires.

The Mortgage Company won't carry the risk of getting burned themselves - in a fire

Matt Sabre

Well not everybody has a mortgage up there. It's not that expensive to own land and build and many of them have been there for years and so have paid off their houses.

Pulaski

Wot Matt said. "Required by the mortgage company" is not the same as "not optional". It's the same here (NC) with flood insurance if you are in a "flood zone" - the mortgage rules require flood insurance, but without a mortgage it is entirel optional.

MMcD

As for 'major structural damage' earthquake risk to single family homes - an
LA Times article published just 10 days ago points out ......

Retrofitting pre-1979 homes can prevent much costlier quake damage - LA Times

Matt Sabre

I'm more worried about termites than anything else. Also I have a cabin up in the foothills and carpenter ants ate through some of the structural beams. I now have monthly sprayings done by a pest company.

MMcD

Oh, yes - for those who don't have mortgages and therefore have no contractual or legal obligation to carry fire insurance and so, they don't (wonder what percentage fall into that category?) this wouldn't apply.....

Matt Sabre

It's horrendously expensive for the State of CA to keep fighting these forest fires so we're seeing a lot more mandatory fire protection fees for those folk who like to live up in the hills.

MMcD

...and with climate change - situation's only getting worse. We had some horrific winds here in LA over the course of 2+ days, knocking out power for 1000's. I held my breath thinking these are perfect conditions for generating the perfect firestorm.

btw - The firefighters are my heroes

Asg123

Yes, true. But I was wondering if there might be another reason too- if there was a major earthquake perhaps they would declare a disaster and there would be federal aid like with the hurricane in Louisiana, so people don't want to waste money on expensive insurance when they would get compensated anyway. I'm just speculating- does anyone know what happened in previous earthquakes, did homeowners get compensated by state or federal aid?

MMcD

In my wildest pipe-dreams - it's never even crossed my mind that either the State or Federal govt. would shell out to repair destruction to one's home due to earthquake damage.

At best - yes, hopefully dig you out from beneath the rubble , get you to Cedars (or whatever hospital is closest) if required and if it's still standing but other than that....would think all available emergency and monetary resources will go toward rescue operations, extinguishing fires caused by exploding gas mains etc. and then in prioritised order - massive cleanup operations, infrastructure repair/reconstruction (roads/freeways, bridges, ports, power etc.)

but....I don't like to think about this - so am crawling back into my state of denial and not comforting myself with any fantasies about what governmental deus ex machina might mean in a post-apocalypse reality.

http://nisee.berkeley.edu/loma_prieta/comerio.html