Calif. Earthquake Authority CEO Testifies In Support of Cat Insurance Bill

March 11, 2010

  • March 11, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Doubtful says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would how much their reinsurance costs are inflated because of poor underwriting data.

    So if I get his straight, we should nationally share the earthquake and hurricane risks, but not the risks of birth defects and other uncontrollable health issues.

    It will be interesting to see which members of congress will demand one form of risk sharing but loudly oppose the other.

  • March 11, 2010 at 3:27 am
    Benny says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If a 7.2 magnitude earthquake occurred on the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault (on the San Francisco Peninsula, running up through San Francisco), it’s estimated that residential losses could be approximately $55.1 billion. At current estimated take-up rates, however, only $4.1 billion of these losses would be covered by insurance, while $51 billion would be uninsured.
    But later on it say’s a repeat of the 1906 San Francisco EQ they would be out 1/2 a billion. So which one is it?

  • March 20, 2010 at 10:51 am
    John Seo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe the article confirms your expectation. The 1/2 billion loss you refer to is expected by the CEA for a repeat of the “World Series” earthquake, not the big San Francisco event.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*