←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
Animats ◴[] No.42734092[source]
Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher.

It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly.

The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement.

I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his personal residence in 1950. The walls look like a commercial building. The outside is just painted cinder block. Works fine, survived the 1989 earthquake without damage, low maintenance. It's not what most people want today in the US.

replies(18): >>42734105 #>>42734140 #>>42734173 #>>42734290 #>>42734511 #>>42734544 #>>42734644 #>>42734673 #>>42734722 #>>42734995 #>>42735134 #>>42735677 #>>42736159 #>>42736211 #>>42736562 #>>42736923 #>>42741822 #>>42744129 #
Sabinus ◴[] No.42734105[source]
If the market is allowed to price insurance correctly then we can motivate building designs to be more disaster resist. If the McMansion can't get insurance but disaster resistant, modest homes do, then people will adapt.
replies(4): >>42734200 #>>42734228 #>>42735408 #>>42739700 #
iandanforth ◴[] No.42734200[source]
"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product. You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.
replies(8): >>42734376 #>>42734406 #>>42734469 #>>42734498 #>>42734568 #>>42734696 #>>42734749 #>>42735083 #
CalRobert ◴[] No.42734498[source]
For what it’s worth, you can get a house with no insurance or mortgage. They tend to be cheap. I had an uninsured thatched cottage for a while, it was 68k
replies(2): >>42734567 #>>42734790 #
lostlogin ◴[] No.42734567[source]
You can have a mortgage with no insurance (after purchase day) here in New Zealand. The bank won’t like it, but also won’t know.
replies(3): >>42734584 #>>42734969 #>>42735113 #
girvo ◴[] No.42734584[source]
Banks in Australia were the same, but some are now starting to demand proof of insurance yearly to counter that loophole.
replies(1): >>42734852 #
thaumasiotes ◴[] No.42734852[source]
What's the thinking here? The bank is loaning you money and they want to ensure you buy a particular product.

They're the ones with the money. They can easily guarantee that you buy the product they want. All they need to do is give you less money, buy the product themselves, and give it to you.

replies(3): >>42735117 #>>42735162 #>>42735470 #
1. girvo ◴[] No.42735470[source]
The insurance is with anyone. They own the house, not you, and so they want to ensure it's not going to burn down (or more likely get washed away in a flood, where I live) and be irrecoverable, so they require you have the home insured. They care naught for contents insurance, just the house/building.
replies(2): >>42735624 #>>42735896 #
2. jstanley ◴[] No.42735624[source]
But if they're the ones that want the building insured, it seems like it would be better for everyone if they're the ones that source the insurance.
3. Peanuts99 ◴[] No.42735896[source]
Is it different in the US to the UK? Surely you own the house and have a liability on the mortgage?
replies(1): >>42737893 #
4. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.42737893[source]
When we bought our house in the UK (a long time ago), it was a condition of the mortgage that we had buildings insurance. The theory is that if the house burns down or similar, the bank will want the rest of their money back and the house buyer is unlikely to be able to afford that considering that they needed a mortgage in the first place.

It's basically the bank just outsourcing a lot of risk to the insurance company (via the house buyer).

replies(1): >>42739098 #
5. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.42739098{3}[source]
Why would they go via the house buyer? They can insure the house themselves.
replies(1): >>42739768 #
6. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.42739768{4}[source]
It's common for the house buyer to want extra insurance (e.g. contents) whereas the bank is only interested in the house as a sellable structure, so it makes sense for the buyer to take on the insurance requirement (it's also less paperwork for the bank).
replies(1): >>42743599 #
7. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.42743599{5}[source]
Insuring the contents of a home is routinely done as an entirely separate matter from insuring the structure. All renters have to do it that way. You can do it that way in a rent-to-own scheme too.
replies(1): >>42744342 #
8. ndsipa_pomu ◴[] No.42744342{6}[source]
We've got combined buildings and contents insurance, but yes they're often separate. My point is that owners want more from the building insurance than a bank cares about.