4 ms·
Even if laws require disclosure, you have to define what authoritative source defines the risk for a given property. If that source lags behind reality, or fai
by myself248 6y ago
Even if laws require disclosure, you have to define what authoritative source defines the risk for a given property.
If that source lags behind reality, or fails to give a picture of future trends, people still get caught unaware.
Isn't this fundamentally the role of insurance? They have the incentive to look forward and anticipate risk, and if flood insurance is particularly expensive or just plain unavailable on a given property, you should look at why.
Is there a generic form like "Give me insurance quotes for every possible type of coverage" that a prospective homebuyer could fill out and submit to a few different insurers, to get a picture of such red flags?
- beamatronic 6y agoI don’t think standard homeowner insurance covers floods or wildfires but otherwise you’re right.
- JackFr 6y agoIt most definitely does not cover flood or rising water. Insuring against flood is a money loser which is why it needs to be subsidized by the government.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoInsuring against floods in certain areas is a money loser. But those areas have a lot of valuable voters who can determine elections, so the politicians that cater to them by providing them taxpayer subsidies win the elections, hence taxpayer subsidized flood insurance.
- pc86 6y agoIf it's a money loser doesn't that just mean that it's priced too low?
- beamatronic 6y agoOr that the existing models are not working
- maxerickson 6y agoPeople won't subscribe at the real price. Perhaps developers should have to bond new housing against floods prior to construction. Fully funded, third party bonds. Sensible locations will more or less be free.
- flurben 6y agoPrivate flood insurance could certainly be profitable, given high enough premiums. The obstacle to a functional flood insurance market are all the people who can't afford market premiums, who have complained to their politicians, demanding that the rest of society subsidize their property risk.
- JackFr 6y agoThe reason why it’s not possible is that property/casualty insurance ordinarily spreads risk across a broad base whose risk is mostly indistinguishable from one another, and where the likelihood of claim is relatively low. The problem is that once you look at a flood plain map it’s easy to see whether you need flood insurance or not. And if the only people who buy the insurance are the highest risks, it makes little sense to sell it.
- flurben 6y agoI disagree. Insurance -- all insurance, even high risk pools -- is fundamentally a numbers game. If the premiums are high enough, then it can be profitable; if it is unprofitable, then the premiums aren't high enough.
- dboreham 6y agoTypically wildfire risk is covered.
- sjg007 6y agoFlood insurance is defined and you have to buy national flood insurance from FEMA (the govt) so you can just look up the property's risk online.
- sambull 6y agoThe old switch a roo, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Drainage/Flood-Ready/Maps/Natomas-Remapping https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Utilities/Drainage/Flood-Re... Around me a basically large area that flooded yearly was somehow magically rezoned, developed all the houses sold and then boom a few years later.. guess what guys... 'we're soorry'