[quote=UCGal]Are you in the bottom of a canyon, or top of a mesa? If you’re at a high point, flood insurance seems pointless.
As far as earthquake insurance… more info is needed. What year was the house built? Building standards have changed through the years – but most of the earthquake standards were in place form the mid 80’s on.
FWIW – we live on a mesa above a canyon and don’t have flood insurance. And since my husband did his “seismic retrofit” to our early 60’s house, we canceled the earthquake insurance. (He added sheer walls, increased foundation bolts and strapping between 1st/2nd floor, added diagonal bracing… brought it up to better than current code.) He did all this because we’re pretty close to the Rose Canyon fault.[/quote]
that’s interesting.
there are two issues when it comes to earthquake. immediate safety and post-event structural stability.
obviously what he did on your house significantly improved the immediate safety issue. And I would assume most homes in SD that’s built within the last 30 years will likely do just fine in regard to immediate safety.
but the ultimate question is what happens if there is structural problems following the event. are you saying chances of structural related issues will be almost nil if there is the type of “seismic retrofit” or if the home is relatively new?
there’s no question SD compared to the rest of SoCal is relatively safer given our distance to San Andreas, which is probably why the earthquake insurance is more of a question then a necessity. but in the back of my mind I do fear a catastrophic event that does end up causing structural damage, despite relative distance to any fault and the city label of “low to moderate risk.” is that just paranoia?
It seems to me that if you have very little equity in the house, earthquake insurance is too expensive to make it worth while. If the house falls down due to a quake, and you have very little skin the game, you’ll have to weight it out when the time comes. Or if there’s a huge quake, they’d likely call a state of emergency and you’d be in line for a low interest loan to get it fixed.
It seems to me that if you have very little equity in the house, earthquake insurance is too expensive to make it worth while. If the house falls down due to a quake, and you have very little skin the game, you’ll have to weight it out when the time comes. Or if there’s a huge quake, they’d likely call a state of emergency and you’d be in line for a low interest loan to get it fixed.
It seems to me that if you have very little equity in the house, earthquake insurance is too expensive to make it worth while. If the house falls down due to a quake, and you have very little skin the game, you’ll have to weight it out when the time comes. Or if there’s a huge quake, they’d likely call a state of emergency and you’d be in line for a low interest loan to get it fixed.
It seems to me that if you have very little equity in the house, earthquake insurance is too expensive to make it worth while. If the house falls down due to a quake, and you have very little skin the game, you’ll have to weight it out when the time comes. Or if there’s a huge quake, they’d likely call a state of emergency and you’d be in line for a low interest loan to get it fixed.
It seems to me that if you have very little equity in the house, earthquake insurance is too expensive to make it worth while. If the house falls down due to a quake, and you have very little skin the game, you’ll have to weight it out when the time comes. Or if there’s a huge quake, they’d likely call a state of emergency and you’d be in line for a low interest loan to get it fixed.
.
