Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
The flip side to all of this is that the insurance industry does not cover damage caused by rivers flooding. Does it cover other natural disasters like a tsnunami, or earthquakes? It brings about the question of which is better; is it better for the gov't to bail out those affected? Or should the gov't force the insurance industry to start offering coverage? What would that do to our insurance rates?
|
Earthquake coverage can be bought on the West Coast as a rider, it is an exclusion in the wordings, however it is very costly and will only be getting worse. I would say in the next 5-10 years people on Vancouver Island and Vancouver area will be paying close to an average of $1000
extra for their insurance for earthquake. That's assuming the average home is around $500,000 which is not a stretch. Right now people are paying a little over half of that.
Also what most people don't realize, or don't want to hear, is that with earthquake coverage you are covered to your limit, not guaranteed replacement, so when prices sky rocket for trades, equipment, etc. when a disaster hits most people won't have the coverage needed and will either have a smaller home or have to wait to have their home rebuilt.
However if the government made insurance companies cover all risks then I believe that instead of the people with the risk paying it will be everyone paying. All of a sudden people in Calgary would have earthquake coverage.