Someone had to create this Someone had to create this poll :). I am curious.
no_such_reality
October 16, 2015 @
12:10 PM
With El Niño coming, is the With El Niño coming, is the more apropo question “do you carry flood insurance?”
The-Shoveler
October 16, 2015 @
12:49 PM
I think that if I had a home I think that if I had a home built on a raised foundation I would buy it or an older two story (before 1995).
Or maybe one of those older View homes built on a half fill lot.
(or a home built next to a cliff).
Coronita
October 16, 2015 @
3:21 PM
Wow. So most people don’t Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.
ocrenter
October 16, 2015 @
3:48 PM
flu wrote:Wow. So most people [quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.
Coronita
October 16, 2015 @
6:37 PM
ocrenter wrote:flu wrote:Wow. [quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.[/quote]
I think the issue is that no one knows one way or the other how things are going to work out, so it’s anyone’s guess.
ltsddd
October 21, 2015 @
8:34 PM
I have earthquake + umbrella I have earthquake + umbrella insurance for all my properties. They’re relatively inexpensive. For a small price, they do give me a that (false) sense of security?
moneymaker
October 21, 2015 @
8:58 PM
I think when I have more than I think when I have more than 50% equity, which will be really soon, I’ll have to look into it.
livinincali
October 22, 2015 @
7:08 AM
flu wrote:ocrenter wrote:flu [quote=flu][quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.[/quote]
I think the issue is that no one knows one way or the other how things are going to work out, so it’s anyone’s guess.[/quote]
The question I would always ask myself is. Will the insurance company actually be able to pay if we get the big one that wipes out 30%+ of the residential homes. I really doubt it so what’s the point of carrying coverage if you can’t collect even when the event you’re worried about comes. You’d have to be in the situation where if a earthquake wipes out <10% of the covered homeowners you're the 1 in 10 that had their house destroyed.
CA renter
November 5, 2015 @
1:42 AM
livinincali wrote:flu [quote=livinincali][quote=flu][quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.[/quote]
I think the issue is that no one knows one way or the other how things are going to work out, so it’s anyone’s guess.[/quote]
The question I would always ask myself is. Will the insurance company actually be able to pay if we get the big one that wipes out 30%+ of the residential homes. I really doubt it so what’s the point of carrying coverage if you can’t collect even when the event you’re worried about comes. You’d have to be in the situation where if a earthquake wipes out <10% of the covered homeowners you're the 1 in 10 that had their house destroyed.[/quote]
This was always the rationale I've heard from people who haven't purchased EQ insurance. Most people figure that if the "big one" really hits, FEMA and other public monies would pay for most of the damage -- covering even more than EQ insurance.
I also think it depends on how much equity you have, like the OP mentioned, above. If your equity stake is less than the deductible, it doesn't make sense to get EQ insurance. If you have a lot of equity/own your house free and clear, then it might make more sense to get the insurance. Just my 2 cents.
livinincali
November 5, 2015 @
6:50 AM
CA renter wrote:
This was [quote=CA renter]
This was always the rationale I’ve heard from people who haven’t purchased EQ insurance. Most people figure that if the “big one” really hits, FEMA and other public monies would pay for most of the damage — covering even more than EQ insurance.
[/quote]
I doubt FEMA and other public monies would be used to pay for it either. Say there’s 500 billion of property damage in SoCal when the big one hits. Where is that money going to come from. Are we going to borrow it from China. That’s a tax bill of close to $3500 for every working American. I think the government might try to help the poor out but that semi rich CV home owner might be on their own.
CA renter
November 6, 2015 @
6:44 AM
livinincali wrote:CA renter [quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
This was always the rationale I’ve heard from people who haven’t purchased EQ insurance. Most people figure that if the “big one” really hits, FEMA and other public monies would pay for most of the damage — covering even more than EQ insurance.
[/quote]
I doubt FEMA and other public monies would be used to pay for it either. Say there’s 500 billion of property damage in SoCal when the big one hits. Where is that money going to come from. Are we going to borrow it from China. That’s a tax bill of close to $3500 for every working American. I think the government might try to help the poor out but that semi rich CV home owner might be on their own.[/quote]
Just based on past experience, like the Northridge quake, FEMA stepped in to help pay for things, IIRC. It wasn’t “the big one,” but it was big enough.
livinincali
November 6, 2015 @
8:28 AM
CA renter wrote:
Just based [quote=CA renter]
Just based on past experience, like the Northridge quake, FEMA stepped in to help pay for things, IIRC. It wasn’t “the big one,” but it was big enough.[/quote]
Biggest payout FEMA every did was for Katrina, Wilma, and Rita in 2005 for about 50 billion. Northridge total damage was about 42 billion. Earthquake insurance companies/FEMA could probably handle those kind of losses but in that scenario your house probably isn’t damaged enough to bother trying to collect earthquake insurance. That’s the less than 10% of total homes effected scenario where you can probably figure out if in your particular situation (next to a big canyon or on some somewhat unstable ground) warrants earthquake insurance. If you aren’t in that situation then you’re just subsidizing those that are when a 7-8 earthquake hits that causes damage but doesn’t level everything.
gzz
October 22, 2015 @
5:56 AM
Just got an offer from my Just got an offer from my house insurance company. $127 for $230,000 dwelling coverage and 15% deductible. So about $195,000 of possible coverage for “the big one” for $127, suggesting that the annual risk is less than 1 in 1500.
Given that my mortgage does not require it, I am not so worried.
The house is more than 100 years old and seems to be overbuilt by people who were not professional builders trying to cut costs to a minimum.
October 16, 2015 @ 12:09 PM
Someone had to create this
Someone had to create this poll :). I am curious.
October 16, 2015 @ 12:10 PM
With El Niño coming, is the
With El Niño coming, is the more apropo question “do you carry flood insurance?”
October 16, 2015 @ 12:49 PM
I think that if I had a home
I think that if I had a home built on a raised foundation I would buy it or an older two story (before 1995).
Or maybe one of those older View homes built on a half fill lot.
(or a home built next to a cliff).
October 16, 2015 @ 3:21 PM
Wow. So most people don’t
Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.
October 16, 2015 @ 3:48 PM
flu wrote:Wow. So most people
[quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.
October 16, 2015 @ 6:37 PM
ocrenter wrote:flu wrote:Wow.
[quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.[/quote]
I think the issue is that no one knows one way or the other how things are going to work out, so it’s anyone’s guess.
October 21, 2015 @ 8:34 PM
I have earthquake + umbrella
I have earthquake + umbrella insurance for all my properties. They’re relatively inexpensive. For a small price, they do give me a that (false) sense of security?
October 21, 2015 @ 8:58 PM
I think when I have more than
I think when I have more than 50% equity, which will be really soon, I’ll have to look into it.
October 22, 2015 @ 7:08 AM
flu wrote:ocrenter wrote:flu
[quote=flu][quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.[/quote]
I think the issue is that no one knows one way or the other how things are going to work out, so it’s anyone’s guess.[/quote]
The question I would always ask myself is. Will the insurance company actually be able to pay if we get the big one that wipes out 30%+ of the residential homes. I really doubt it so what’s the point of carrying coverage if you can’t collect even when the event you’re worried about comes. You’d have to be in the situation where if a earthquake wipes out <10% of the covered homeowners you're the 1 in 10 that had their house destroyed.
November 5, 2015 @ 1:42 AM
livinincali wrote:flu
[quote=livinincali][quote=flu][quote=ocrenter][quote=flu]Wow. So most people don’t have it. Interesting.[/quote]
Makes me wonder if I really need to get it. Especially with the insane deductible. Per the earthquake map it does look like the risk is rather on the low side.[/quote]
I think the issue is that no one knows one way or the other how things are going to work out, so it’s anyone’s guess.[/quote]
The question I would always ask myself is. Will the insurance company actually be able to pay if we get the big one that wipes out 30%+ of the residential homes. I really doubt it so what’s the point of carrying coverage if you can’t collect even when the event you’re worried about comes. You’d have to be in the situation where if a earthquake wipes out <10% of the covered homeowners you're the 1 in 10 that had their house destroyed.[/quote]
This was always the rationale I've heard from people who haven't purchased EQ insurance. Most people figure that if the "big one" really hits, FEMA and other public monies would pay for most of the damage -- covering even more than EQ insurance.
I also think it depends on how much equity you have, like the OP mentioned, above. If your equity stake is less than the deductible, it doesn't make sense to get EQ insurance. If you have a lot of equity/own your house free and clear, then it might make more sense to get the insurance. Just my 2 cents.
November 5, 2015 @ 6:50 AM
CA renter wrote:
This was
[quote=CA renter]
This was always the rationale I’ve heard from people who haven’t purchased EQ insurance. Most people figure that if the “big one” really hits, FEMA and other public monies would pay for most of the damage — covering even more than EQ insurance.
[/quote]
I doubt FEMA and other public monies would be used to pay for it either. Say there’s 500 billion of property damage in SoCal when the big one hits. Where is that money going to come from. Are we going to borrow it from China. That’s a tax bill of close to $3500 for every working American. I think the government might try to help the poor out but that semi rich CV home owner might be on their own.
November 6, 2015 @ 6:44 AM
livinincali wrote:CA renter
[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
This was always the rationale I’ve heard from people who haven’t purchased EQ insurance. Most people figure that if the “big one” really hits, FEMA and other public monies would pay for most of the damage — covering even more than EQ insurance.
[/quote]
I doubt FEMA and other public monies would be used to pay for it either. Say there’s 500 billion of property damage in SoCal when the big one hits. Where is that money going to come from. Are we going to borrow it from China. That’s a tax bill of close to $3500 for every working American. I think the government might try to help the poor out but that semi rich CV home owner might be on their own.[/quote]
Just based on past experience, like the Northridge quake, FEMA stepped in to help pay for things, IIRC. It wasn’t “the big one,” but it was big enough.
November 6, 2015 @ 8:28 AM
CA renter wrote:
Just based
[quote=CA renter]
Just based on past experience, like the Northridge quake, FEMA stepped in to help pay for things, IIRC. It wasn’t “the big one,” but it was big enough.[/quote]
Biggest payout FEMA every did was for Katrina, Wilma, and Rita in 2005 for about 50 billion. Northridge total damage was about 42 billion. Earthquake insurance companies/FEMA could probably handle those kind of losses but in that scenario your house probably isn’t damaged enough to bother trying to collect earthquake insurance. That’s the less than 10% of total homes effected scenario where you can probably figure out if in your particular situation (next to a big canyon or on some somewhat unstable ground) warrants earthquake insurance. If you aren’t in that situation then you’re just subsidizing those that are when a 7-8 earthquake hits that causes damage but doesn’t level everything.
October 22, 2015 @ 5:56 AM
Just got an offer from my
Just got an offer from my house insurance company. $127 for $230,000 dwelling coverage and 15% deductible. So about $195,000 of possible coverage for “the big one” for $127, suggesting that the annual risk is less than 1 in 1500.
Given that my mortgage does not require it, I am not so worried.
The house is more than 100 years old and seems to be overbuilt by people who were not professional builders trying to cut costs to a minimum.