Mon, Feb 27, 2006 - Page 9 News List

Insuring the worst may require spreading the risk globally

By Robert Shiller

In the nearly six months since Hurricane Katrina destroyed half of New Orleans, many storm victims' expectations of help have been dashed, creating a legacy of bitterness. That legacy may be all the more painful when we consider that many homeowners suffered unnecessarily devastating losses because of their lack of insurance or their underinsurance, often owing to the belief that they could not afford the right coverage.

Future catastrophes -- storms, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, forest fires, agricultural or other environmental crises, disease epidemics, or terrorist attacks -- are likely to result in the same kinds of problems. So it is important to consider the causes of underinsurance and whether our insurance institutions are adequate to the risks that we face.

According to a report from the Insurance Information Institute, nearly 70 percent of homeowners' claims in Louisiana were settled by the end of last month, for a total of US$7.5 billion. Sounds good, but there were roughly 200,000 homes that were either severely damaged or destroyed, so the total amounts to less than US$40,000 per home -- far below what was needed.

Indeed, a large share of New Orleans homeowners -- 60 percent in Orleans Parish -- were completely uninsured against floods. Many of those who were insured discovered that clauses in their policies barred them from collecting full benefits.

In some cases, insurance companies argued that houses were damaged by flood, not wind, which their policies cover more generously. That may seem like capricious hair-splitting to people who have suffered a major loss, but such terms are in the insurance contracts that they signed, whether they understood them or not.

Claims disputes have led to many lawsuits, and many of those who have lost their homes have discovered that the only help available to them now is a low-interest loan. Not unreasonably, US President George W. Bush wants government grants to bail out only the approximately 20,000 homeowners who can't be faulted for failing to buy flood insurance, because they lived outside the designated flood plains.

Despite the disappointments, private insurance is still the best way to deal with possible future disasters. Insurance policies that clearly specify the amounts that will be paid and the types of damage that will be covered are far better than the government-administered, after-the-fact bailout that many people seem to have expected.

Adequate private insurance can be boosted in the future through public education, improved insurance institutions, and lower insurance costs. We need to work on all of these agendas, because each must be part of any new plan to deal with the next catastrophe.

The cost of insurance may be the most serious problem. According to estimates by Robert Klein of Georgia State University, homeowners' insurance premiums in Louisiana had already gone up by 70 percent between 1997 and last year. State insurance regulators resist rate increases, but they are ultimately powerless, because insurers can simply take their business elsewhere.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed last December that each of the US' 50 states should establish a disaster insurance fund to cover a wide range of big calamities. The funds -- modeled after similar funds in France and Spain -- would be designed to cover the biggest, once-in-50-years catastrophes. The federal government would then augment the protection up to the once-in-500-year level

This story has been viewed 3090 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top