Earthquake Insurance-- have it? don't have it?

[Little Nyssa]

Can you help us decide whether to get earthquake insurance put into our new homeowners' policy?

DH is from an earthquake-prone area and thinks everyone should have it. We do NOT live in an earthquake state. Not at all! Of course, the unexpected could happen anywhere... but it's extremely unlikely that a giant earthquake would hit here.

The policy costs $20/month and it has a $25,000 deductible. So, there would have to be $25K of damage before it would make any difference.

 

Please, tell me if you 1.) have earthquake insurance or don't

and if you 2.) live in an earthquake state (like California) or not

and 3.) how can we all resist getting insured for every contingency, no matter how remote, once it is mentioned and we start worrying about it???

[Farrar]

But if you're in the Pacific Northwest, then you are in an earthquake state.:confused:

 

See, the USGS says you're in the top ten states.

[Little Nyssa]

Thanks!

Yes, but it has 10 times less than California, and what about magnitude?

Much less.

[kitten18]

Yes. We have earthquake insurance. We live in CA. The cost is probably dependant on the risk because we pay A LOT more than that. Our earthquake insurance is just a little less than our homeowners insurance.

[jar7709]

What state are you in? If you are on the west coast, you are in an earthquake area. Earthquake insurance will probably not be cheap. I live in the puget sound, and I am a geologist and fully understand the risk. I do not have earthquake insurance, but what I do have is an earthquake-improved house...the frame of the house is strapped to the foundation, earthquake brackets on all bookcases etc., and emergency preparation supplies like backup power, heat, and water. IMO those areas would be a better place to put the money than in EQ insurance.

[jar7709]

Thanks!

Yes, but it has 10 times less than California, and what about magnitude?

Much less.

 

The OR/WA coast is due for another 9.0 quake. On average, quakes that size here occur about every 300 years. The last one was in the year 1700.

[KrissiK]

We live in California and I would never buy earthquake insurance. Well, where we live, we do have earthquakes and feel them occasionally, but the most damage is maybe a vase falling off a shelf. Maybe if I lived somewhere like LA or the Bay Area I'd feel differently.

[JenneinCA]

We live in the SF Bay area and do not have earthquake insurance. It isn't worth it. The chances of an earthquake happening are high. The chances of it making the house unlivable are very low.

 

We can better spend that money on other things... like life insurance.

[Little Nyssa]

Jar, we have all those things. :001_smile:

 

Statements like "we are due for a big one" confuse me-- is that based on statistics or on seismic readings of pressure on the faults? If huge earthquakes have occurred roughly every 300 years, how do we know whether the next will be at the same frequency? Maybe it will be 400 yrs, and the one after that in 200 years. I wonder if you can explain this to me. Every so often I see something like this in the media, but they sensationalize so many things that I have gotten used to not taking them too seriously.

[nmoira]

The OR/WA coast is due for another 9.0 quake. On average, quakes that size here occur about every 300 years. The last one was in the year 1700.

This.

 

But we still don't have earthquake insurance. There are a couple other things we have planned/budgeted before retrofitting our 100-plus yo house so we even qualify for coverage.

[DaffodilDreams]

We have it, but we are on a major fault line. I think our insurance company is getting nervous because they just raised their earthquake deductibles.

 

; )

Edited May 19, 2012 by kimmie38017

[Little Nyssa]

Re: earthquakes in our state, I guess Nyssa is just showing her ignorance :blushing:

Thanks for all the posts, ladies.

[jar7709]

Jar, we have all those things. :001_smile:

 

Statements like "we are due for a big one" confuse me-- is that based on statistics or on seismic readings of pressure on the faults? If huge earthquakes have occurred roughly every 300 years, how do we know whether the next will be at the same frequency? Maybe it will be 400 yrs, and the one after that in 200 years. I wonder if you can explain this to me. Every so often I see something like this in the media, but they sensationalize so many things that I have gotten used to not taking them too seriously.

 

If you have all those things then I'd call you prepared. :)

 

Re the bolded, this is a good question! I wish more people actively thought about it. In this case, we know these very large earthquakes have occurred about every 200-600 years from the geologic record....tree ring dates and carbon dating of drowned coastlines combined with information on tsunamis observed in Japan. It's really a fascinating story. And you're right, we don't know it won't be 500 years, this time, but we can't know it won't be tomorrow, either, because such is the nature of earthquakes and our understanding of the stresses that cause them at this time. Probability estimates for an 8+ earthquake within the next 50 years range from 10% to 40%. If you look up "Cascadia Subduction Zone" on wikipedia you'll get a lot of good info. :)

[gardenmom5]

I live in earthquake country. we are overdue for the "big one". we have had four earthquakes in this house, including one that was 6.8 (NOT "the big one", but a size that has hit twice in my lifetime - and it was a long stretch between them.). we have insurance. Our house is retrofitted, and we have vertical siding which holds things together during oscillation much better than horizontal siding.

 

eta: northwest is earthquake country - especially west of the cascades. we know the exact date of the last big one because of the tsunami records in Japan. we may not shake as often as CA - but we can shake bigger becasue of the type of fault we have just off shore. I was "just" far enough north to not get ash from Mt. St. Helen's at our house. I've friend who lived 10 miles south who DID.

Edited May 19, 2012 by gardenmom5

[gardenmom5]

If you look up "Cascadia Subduction Zone" on wikipedia you'll get a lot of good info. :)

 

and something was busy recently. there was a hundred mile long low-magnitude swarm from north to south just west of the cascades that took place over the course of a week . . . . is someone waking up?

[Hope in God]

Yep, we do have earthquake insurance. I think that this is the insurance that we are statistically the most likely to cash in on one day. We live on Vancouver Island and are completely encircled by fault lines.:ohmy:

[jar7709]

and something was busy recently. there was a hundred mile long low-magnitude swarm from north to south just west of the cascades that took place over the course of a week . . . . is someone waking up?

 

Who knows. But this page shows recent earthquakes in the PNW and has really interesting blog posts... http://www.pnsn.org/

[PhotoGal]

We don't have earthquake insurance. Most of the value of our house is in the land, so I figure that the amount really in question is the difference between the deductible and the amount the house is really worth itself. I have thought about getting at times, though.

[DianeW88]

I live in the Salt Lake City area. High risk for earthquakes of a high magnitude. We have multiple small ones in Utah (less than 3.0) every day. We haven't had a large magnitude earthquake in over 500 years, and we're supposedly overdue. We don't have earthquake insurance. It's ridiculously expensive.

 

Here's our map for this week's quakes if anyone is a seismic junkie. :D

 

http://quake.utah.edu/recenteqs/

[tex-mex]

But if you're in the Pacific Northwest, then you are in an earthquake state.:confused:

 

See, the USGS says you're in the top ten states.

:iagree:

 

And isn't Mt. Rainier (a volcano) one of the most dangerous regions due to the high population of citizens who might be caught up in a pyroclastic flow should the mountain erupt?

 

ETA: When we lived 5 miles away from the San Andreas Fault (in the Mojave Desert), we never had earthquake insurance. It is a racket. If you are going to have that bad of damage... then the entire region would be in ruins like the '71 Sylmar Earthquake or the '94 Northridge Earthquake.

Edited May 20, 2012 by tex-mex

[Grover]

We don't have earthquake insurance. Most of the value of our house is in the land, so I figure that the amount really in question is the difference between the deductible and the amount the house is really worth itself. I have thought about getting at times, though.

 

I'm in Christchurch, NZ, and many people have lost their land as well as their home - the land is too damaged to ever be able to build on... worth thinking about.

 

I wouldn't be without it myself... but if you'd asked me prior to our own big quakes I probably would have said nah, don't worry about it.

[redmom3]

This really interest me...

We moved to the CA Central Valley 6 mo ago. I was very surprised to find out that earthquake ins was not part of our policy and that most people here don't have it--we would need to add it on.

In fact, my husband is a preacher and everyone I have asked in our church totally blow off the idea of any damage here ( 90 min due east of San Francisco)

Being from TX all I have every heard is about earthquakes in CA and folks back home kept asking me if I have felt one yet. I even tried to prepare my kids for what it might be like.

People say they have only ever felt a couple of them in their lifetimes and not strong. Friends here are more concerned about how I could live in TX and not be super worried about tornados all the time.

Still haven't decided about the ins.

[sbgrace]

I live in Indiana and have earthquake insurance. We're number 18 on that map so well under your state's ranking. To me the premium is worth the protection.

[LillyMama]

Grew up in SF Bay Area- was there for the "big one" in 89. Never had earthquake insurance.

 

Here's a good article on the subject, my friend from high school and his dad wrote it. :D

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/DDGR16HCM8.DTL

[Soror]

We do here, we are close enough to the New Madrid Fault line to worry me. I'd much rather have insurance than be dependent on FEMA and such.

[redmom3]

Thanks for the article Lillymama. I think we will pass on the earthquake ins. :001_smile:

[EKS]

Thanks!

Yes, but it has 10 times less than California, and what about magnitude?

Much less.

 

Not true. Up here in the Pacific Northwest, we get subduction zone earthquakes, which are infrequent, but can be HUGE.

[missmoe]

We have a home in CA and a home in MO. We have earthquake insurance on both homes. In fact, our bank in MO insisted we have earthquake insurance since a large fault runs through the city we lived in. And in fact an earthquake hit while living in that house. All I could think is I'm on the third floor of a three story brick house!

 

I think earthquake insurance is a wise thing where you live!

[Crimson Wife]

Earthquake insurance for us would be super-expensive and still have a ridiculously high deductible (something like 15%). For the amount of money that we would have to pay out-of-pocket with that deductible, we could buy a LOT of retrofitting.

[ChristineW]

Grew up in SF Bay Area- was there for the "big one" in 89. Never had earthquake insurance.

 

Here's a good article on the subject, my friend from high school and his dad wrote it. :D

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/24/DDGR16HCM8.DTL

 

That article explains why we don't have earthquake insurance. Although we're fairly close to a fault, we're in an old wood frame house built into the rock of a hill. If our home were seriously damaged, Oakland and Berkeley would be flattened.

 

We have $0 equity in the home so if we're on top of some undiscovered fault, we'd be better off declaring letting the bank foreclose on ruins, In 6-10 years when we have some equity in the house, we'll probably retrofit first but we might consider insurance.

[Anne]

We live in Alaska. We have earthquake insurance.

 

Anne