Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California • Hacker News Board

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#51

Post by sizzzzlerz » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 8:44 PM UTC

Rebelgecko wrote: post #31

Zafira wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand why people keep bring up earthquake insurance, but it's not that many of us haven't considered it. It can be expensive to the extent that you are better off reinforcing your home rather than spending any money on said insurance. "The expensive deductible related to earthquake insurance are sometimes as high as 15% of the value of the home, which has many homeowners giving the insurance a second thought."…

When I looked into it, adding on earthquake insurance would cost more than my regular homeowners insurance, and like you said would still have a huge deductible without even covering most of my belongings

Furthermore, if a big quake happens, insurance companies are going to go broke paying out claims. Homeowners are going to be at the back of the line meaning most of them aren't going to see a dime.

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#52

Post by jtdev » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

cgoecknerwald wrote: post #5

"Only 10 percent of California's 7 million plus homeowners have earthquake insurance – and the number has dropped by more than half since the deadly quake" (2014) You can get an estimate for an earthquake insurance policy with the California Earthquake Authority. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/why-do-so-few-ca... [2] https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/

Why? So the sleazy insurance companies can deny or only pay a small percentage of your claim?? No thanks, the insurance industry has reduced itself to a rent seeking, regulatory capture machine with nearly zero value proposition for customers at this point.

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#53

Post by saagarjha » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

TimTheTinker wrote: post #12

cgoecknerwald wrote: post #5

"Only 10 percent of California's 7 million plus homeowners have earthquake insurance – and the number has dropped by more than half since the deadly quake" (2014) You can get an estimate for an earthquake insurance policy with the California Earthquake Authority. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/why-do-so-few-ca... [2] https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/

I'm not clear how a CEA policy makes financial sense for a standard single-family, owner-occupied house. The only affordable plans have massive deductibles and only partial cost coverage. If "the big one" hits, it's likely that: (a) CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway. (b) The whole community will be ruined so assuming all of my family is still alive we'd best move somewhere else anyway (a…

> CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway.

I don’t understand why insurance companies can run out of money whenever they need to pay claims. I’m sure they know they’re going to go under, why can’t they get insurance on themselves?

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#54

Post by datamingle » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

cgoecknerwald wrote: post #5

"Only 10 percent of California's 7 million plus homeowners have earthquake insurance – and the number has dropped by more than half since the deadly quake" (2014) You can get an estimate for an earthquake insurance policy with the California Earthquake Authority. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/why-do-so-few-ca... [2] https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/

Interesting startup in Earthquake insurance https://www.jumpstartrecovery.com

The earthquake was strong enough for a payout if you were located within the zone: https://twitter.com/yourjumpstart/status/1146850926512111616

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#55

Post by alex_young » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

iscrewyou wrote: post #30

foota wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6.7 is a lot stronger than a 6.4 though, as well.

If we are splitting hair, a 6.4 can technically be more dangerous compared to a 6.7 if the waves and the oscillation of the building coincide and amplify.

The Richter Scale is 10 x per full point. A 6.7 should be 4 times the strength of a 6.4

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#56

Post by seandougall » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #36

tanderson92 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only a few miles away in San Gabriel and did not feel a thing; I wonder if the SGV blocked any of the waves. Wish I had come to campus early today to feel that one.

For anyone wondering, SGV refers to the San Gabriel Valley. (Correct me if I got it wrong.)

You got it right! (Though Pasadena is also in the SGV.)

I felt it in South Pasadena, but it was very gentle; would have been easy to miss if I hadn’t been sitting still when it happened.

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#57

Post by panlana » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

ryanhuff wrote: post #43

tanderson92 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only a few miles away in San Gabriel and did not feel a thing; I wonder if the SGV blocked any of the waves. Wish I had come to campus early today to feel that one.

Apparently, mountains buffer the waves. SGV is bordered by a San Gabriel mountain range. So, your experience sounds reasonable to me.

I'm in the mountains in San Bernadino (Lake Arrowhead / Big Bear) and I felt it pretty good. Shook the door to the bathroom. Thought my wife was being impatient.

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#58

Post by richk449 » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 9:00 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #53

TimTheTinker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear how a CEA policy makes financial sense for a standard single-family, owner-occupied house. The only affordable plans have massive deductibles and only partial cost coverage. If "the big one" hits, it's likely that: (a) CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway. (b) The whole community will be ruined so assuming all of my family is still alive we'd best move somewhere else anyway (a…

> CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway. I don’t understand why insurance companies can run out of money whenever they need to pay claims. I’m sure they know they’re going to go under, why can’t they get insurance on themselves?

What’s the incentive to purchase insurance? It will reduce their profits. If you are an executive of a company offering earthquake insurance, better to just keeps profits high now, make a high salary, and when the big quake hits, declare bankruptcy and walk away.

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#59

Post by otterley » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #53

TimTheTinker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not clear how a CEA policy makes financial sense for a standard single-family, owner-occupied house. The only affordable plans have massive deductibles and only partial cost coverage. If "the big one" hits, it's likely that: (a) CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway. (b) The whole community will be ruined so assuming all of my family is still alive we'd best move somewhere else anyway (a…

> CEA will quickly run out of money and I won't be covered anyway. I don’t understand why insurance companies can run out of money whenever they need to pay claims. I’m sure they know they’re going to go under, why can’t they get insurance on themselves?

They do, in fact! It's called reinsurance, and Gen Re (owned by Berkshire Hathaway) is one of the biggest issuers of reinsurance.

Re: Strongest earthquake in years rattles Southern California

#60

Post by seandougall » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 9:02 PM UTC

eof wrote: post #14

ralusek wrote: post #7

I feel like we're woefully underprepared for earthquakes. It feels like pushing away technical debt on a societal scale.

I think the lack of damage from this shows a high degree of preparation. This same earthquake 50 years ago would have likely been much worse.

This was also relatively remote. If it had been, say, the East Bay, where there’s high population density and lots of older homes with unreinforced masonry foundations, the situation would look a lot different.