It seems strange to get earthquake insurance in this area. I didn't have it when we lived in CA, because it was very expensive, had a very high deductible, and we didn't live directly on a fault line.

We and many of our nearby friends and neighbors experienced damage from the 2011 earthquake, but it did not show up immediately. So there was no way to officially say it was from the earthquake. Mainly it was damage to the chimneys. For us,it caused the caulk to separate from the chimney and a few months later when we had a down pour, it came into our living room. Others experienced similar or had to get their chimneys repaired.


So it is likely that you will get damage from an earthquake, but not realize it in time to get the insurance coming to make the same connection and cover it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your all lucky! I live in the Bay Area and pay $1,2000. a year although I know my risk is much stronger then yours. Surprisingly only like 10% of people in California even have it.

We paid $4,000 a year for earthquake insurance in San Francisco when we lived there. Almost no one we knew had it but given the real estate prices and the size of our mortgage, it seemed crazy to not have it. We do not have it here but now I'm wondering if we should add it given how cheap it sounds like it is.... Our home is brick which I know is vulnerable to damage.

Not sure when you left SF but in general earthquake insurance has gotten much cheaper with the California Earthquake Authority running it. Living in the North Bay I'm sure that also keeps the price down a little compared to SF real estate prices.

Anonymous wrote:Your all lucky! I live in the Bay Area and pay $1,2000. a year although I know my risk is much stronger then yours. Surprisingly only like 10% of people in California even have it.

We paid $4,000 a year for earthquake insurance in San Francisco when we lived there. Almost no one we knew had it but given the real estate prices and the size of our mortgage, it seemed crazy to not have it. We do not have it here but now I'm wondering if we should add it given how cheap it sounds like it is.... Our home is brick which I know is vulnerable to damage.

I've certainly thought about that but because so few people have it I think the California Earth Authority will be able to cover it if my area is hit badly. If I lived in SF or LA that would be a different story though. Having just paid off our house, I can't afford not to have it. It's not like I can walk away from the house and let the mortgage company deal with it.

Anonymous wrote:Your all lucky! I live in the Bay Area and pay $1,2000. a year although I know my risk is much stronger then yours. Surprisingly only like 10% of people in California even have it.

Some providers don't even offer it. And honestly, if there was a big one affecting huge metro areas, would you trust an insurance company to be able to make all those payouts?

Your all lucky! I live in the Bay Area and pay $1,2000. a year although I know my risk is much stronger then yours. Surprisingly only like 10% of people in California even have it.

I do. $200 extra with a 5% deductible.

I am an earthquake seismologist. I do not have eq insurance. The risk is low, the construction of my house make it unlikely that there would be significant dammage, wood frame are realizant in earthquakes. The earthquake insurance typically has a high deductible, around 10 or 20%, and since my house is a tear down on a well located lot, I would just sell the lot.

Yup, we do, about $220 extra.

Similar to the post on flood insurance, if you're in the DMV, do you have earthquake coverage as part of your homeowner's insurance? We got a quote of an additional $200/yr to add to our homeowners insurance for an $850k home. I would have never thought to have earthquake insurance in the DMV, but we had the rather large earthquake in Richmond in 2011 that damaged some buildings in the DMV.