Wednesday, October 16, 2019


Just received the renewal notice for our house insurance.     Not too much of a change from last year EXCEPT that the Government Earthquake Levy charge has increased by 66.6% from $200 to $300.

Problem is that we don't have earthquakes up here in Paihia ... the Pacific Plate fault line runs out through White Island in the Bay of Plenty.

I can understand the rationale for EQ cover but a 66.6% increase for an area where there hasn't been any significant seismic actively since Adam wuz a Cowboy is either price gouging or cross-subsidisation in favor of earthquake prone areas or a mixture of both and neither can be justified.

So again, thanx a bitch Gummit.


Andrei said...

EQC covers natural disasters Veteran - including volcanic eruptions, landslips and tsunamis

I guess one of the reasons for the increase is that the Government in its infinite wisdom decided to payout Christchurch residents who were not insured and hence hadn't been contributing to the fund. There were I belive 103 recipients of this largesse and teh money has to come from somewhere I guess and my guess is that that somewhere is from responsible citizens who take care of their affairs and pay their insurance premiums

My insurance premiums have nearly doubled since the Christchurch Earthquake

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Veteran... I'm sure that the car owners in high accident areas like Wellington are overjoyed in subsidising your car insurance in a area where a fender bender makes the the local rag. it's more cost effective to make people homeless and let them die of preventable Iowa...

You are a real gem, mate

The Veteran said...

Andrei ... agreed. For interest and according to the letter I received the levy is 'risk braided'. So, eayrhquakes ... not much chance at all; volcanic eruptions ditto; tsunamis, we're 340m on a hill overlooking the sea ... if we go so does most of Northland; leaves only slips ... we're built on rock ... Yep, that could go but unlikely. So I'm left with my thesis ... price gouging or cross-subsidisation or both.

Andrei said...


I guess all insurance involves "cross-subsidisation" to some extent - the costs of having to make an individual risk assesment to you property of a claim under the provisions the EQC along with having to do the same for veryone else covered by the scheme would make the premiums horrendusly more expensive.


I pay my insurance premiums, and Veteran pays his - what you are suggesting is that we should also pay everyone elses because they would prefer to spend their money at the pub than take responsibilty for protecting their own property against unforseen circumstances

Seems reasonable. But what happens if Veteran and me and everybody else decide we don't want to pay our premiums and expect the Government to make things right for us when they go wrong? How will that work?

As per ususal you launch into a non sequitar on this occaision involving health care in Iowa which as far as I can tell has little to do with the cost of Household insurance in Paihia.

Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

What a plonker ou are Andrei....always with the straw man should have stopped at cross subsidisation.

Anonymous said...

Sadly Vet the cross subsidisation is much worse than you realise.

You are correct in that you are paying the same rate as so in a much higher EQC prone area, like Wellington. But it goes much further than that.

Following Christchurch EQC is empty. The funds built up over the past 70 years have all been paid out. That means the government, that is us taxpayers, are backing EQC. The next big one will be funded by taxpayers once EQCs reinsurance has been depleted.

EQC is a busted flush. We need to put it out of its misery and let the insurance industry risk rate the country properly.

And for leftards like Egbut who think government meddling in the insurance industry is a good idea, stop for a moment to understand it is not sustainable in the long term. I know you won’t understand but I’ll say it anyway: The aggregate exposure in our earthquake prone country is too great to be carried by our own capital.


Lord Egbut Nobacon said...

Para trying to break Adolfs record of 100%......Califonia Govt "meddling"

Snowflake said...

Thanx a bitch? That’s a new one. Keep it.

Poor wee “the Veteran” can’t afford a $2 a week increase in his EQC levy. I’m assuming you also claim National Super? Is that rated according to your need? Do you think it should be?

Anonymous said...

Do you have a point Egbut or are you just continuing your 100% record of being an idiot? Regardless of the insurance programme California has, EQC continues to be a busted flush.

The early 1990s changes to the scheme set up EQC for failure. That’s the problem with government meddling in stuff they don’t understand. I’m about to use some words you won’t understand Egbut, however others will get the concept. By setting up cover on a first loss basis but not charging premium on exposure as it increased through inflation, the Christchurch situation was always going to happen, it was only a matter of time. The $100k cap in the 90s would have covered the majority of damage to a home at 1990 costs. However as house building costs increased the $100k cap became more exposed, without a corresponding increase in premium to match it.

There is no comparison between the two programs. EQC is mandated by government and is backed by taxpayers. The California Earthquake Authority is a privately funded, publicly managed entity that provides coverage on behalf of about two dozen insurers. It has $17 billion with which to pay claims.

The authority says it has sufficient funds to handle a catastrophe. However, it acknowledges that “if an earthquake causes insured damage greater than the CEA’s claim-paying capacity, policyholders with earthquake damage may be paid a prorated portion of their covered losses.”


Noel said...

The caps gone from 100,000 to 150,000 with premiums increase. Seems predictable, was signalled in February, but when you factor the removing of the contents 20,000 cover it's a bit steep.

The Veteran said...

Flake ... I see you wisely kept your gob shut over your Girl's disowning of Justin Lester and it would have been better had you done so here too.

Your comment is a busted flush. Everyone gets NZL (note NZL not National ... twas National but your mob changed it to NZL ... wonder why?). Not everyone insures their home. I can certainly afford the $2 week increase but I know of other less fortunate than I for whom the increase will be a real burden. It's all about fairness but I guess for you and yours fairness doesn't rate particularly high.

Noel said...

As I said if the cap was 150,000 plus 20,000 contents then a 66 percent rise could be palatable but to remove the contents and only add 50,000 is insulting.

Anonymous said...

Noel if you’re ever caught up in a disaster you’ll be pleased EQC aren’t in the way of your insurer sorting out your contents claim.