Do you really need earthquake insurance here in Sacramento? (San Francisco: home owners insurance, condo)

[mixxalot]

So my insurance company is pitching earthquake insurance to me as a home owner in Sacramento and I’ve never seen any damage caused by earthquakes here in 25+ years of living in this town. Is it worth buying?

[MyNewsLogin]

Sacramento is not on a major fault line but it is close enough to feel and get damage from a large quake on the San Andreas fault or one of the smaller fault lines in the bay area and in the foothills. The Loma Prieta quake in 1989 caused minor damage to some structures in Sacramento (cracked plaster and stucco, etc.) and there was some property damage (things fell from shelves, unsecured bookcases fell, etc.). Whether insurance is worth buying depends on your level of risk tolerance and your finances. If an earthquake does cause damage to your property, home owners insurance will not cover it - would you be able to? Most earthquakes here are mild and rare but there is a statistical possibility of something major striking.

[shelato]

In general, you should buy insurance for risks you can't cover on your own. If you buy a house with a mortgage and it gets destroyed in an earthquake can you cover the cost of the remainder on your mortgage out of pocket or would you need to file bankruptcy? Insurance protects you from needing to file bankruptcy. The risk of earthquakes in Sacramento is pretty low so the cost of the insurance should be pretty cheap, especially if you don't overinsure and have the highest deductible you can afford.

[Valley Boy]

Nope but I reckon flood insurance is a smart move.

[cb73]

I've never seen any true earthquake damage here in a whole lot more than 25 years living here. According to the Sacramento Bee in 1906, there wasn't really much damage here from that earthquake either.

That being said, secure everything. Water heaters are legally required to be strapped and bookcases or tall cabinets can be secured to the wall with brackets. Just in case.

[mixxalot]

Originally Posted by Valley Boy

Nope but I reckon flood insurance is a smart move.

Agree on flood insurance and fire insurance. Having lived in Sacramento most of my life, I never experienced a large enough earthquake to cause major home damage.

[citizensadvocate]

Remember you never know, people in Osaka and Kobe, Japan thought they were living in a practically earthquake free zone compared to rest of Japan that is until 1995, the biggest issue was liquidfaction of the ground, which can occur even if the epicenter is far away, this happened in parts of San Francisco and Oakland during the 1989 quake despite the epicenter being in the Santa Cruz mountains. And a good portion of Sacramento is sitting on marshlands and parts had been risen up via landfill to avoid flooding. Which is another issue as levees can collaspe and the city lies below a old dam.

Having said that it appears most of California still finds earthquake insurance too expensive and not worth it given the restrictions it has. Apparently from what I heard a building has to be completely totalled in order for such insurance to provide any coverage.

[mixxalot]

The deductible State Farm sent for its earthquake insurance is way too high at 97k to make it even worth buying.

[sacreole]

Most residential earthquake insurance policies are issued through the California Earthquake Authority or CEA. I pay about $250 annually for coverage on my condo. It can be purchased through your insurance agent who provides your fire and homeowners insurance.

https://www.earthquakeauthority.com/...nce-California

[mixxalot]

I have State Farm for my home owner policy and their earthquake insurance add on stinks bad with terribly high 97k deductible!