THE COMING INSURANCE CRISIS

The catastrophic California fires will hit every New Zealander in the pocket. That’s because all insurances world-wide, are pooled.

That’s hardly surprising after all if you’re in the insurance business your first and most important client and thus initial step as an insurance company, is to insure yourself.

So when one buys an insurances policy, the company selling it basically clips the ticket; this a sort of finder’s fee, but thereafter promptly sells down most of the exposure into a pool of other insurance companies, all taking a small portion of the risk.

When the twin towers atrocity occurred in New York over 20 years back, New Zealand premiums rose sharply as our share of the loss.

The Californian fires are of such a dimension they will add a huge burden for our home-owners finding their insurance renewal premiums soaring. So too with all other policies but the home-ownership one, being the largest most folk incur, will cause much financial distress.

So what to do about this?

If your home is mortgage free which currently roughly a third in New Zealand are, this percentage half the number of 30 or 40 years earlier when houses were smaller, much poorer in quality and thus cheaper, you could decide to bear the risk yourself.

That’s not silly. Houses burning down are highly unusual events.

Alternatively, the mortgage-free owner could cut his premium by perhaps insuring for half the house value. This would cover most likely claims but more important, in the highly unlikely event the house is destroyed, this home-owner will have sufficient funds, albeit now with a mortgage, to rebuild.

All homes whether rented or supplied by the government, or other entities, will cop the same leap in insurance costs. It follows therefore that if one subscribes to the overwhelming evident social benefit of a home-owning democracy, the state subsidising premiums, perhaps by 50%, is a rational government collective action.

This will cap premiums to a reasonable level for owners and so too rentals for tenants.

While I personally have a skeptical view on military expenditure, most folk seemingly accept it as worthy and thus a reasonable solely government function. So too sharing insurance premiums collectively via central government is analogous. Conversely there’s no rational reason for central government, our largest property owner with schools, hospitals, police stations and numerous other buildings, to insure them.

Far better for it to bear the risk and accept the occasional loss, as opposed to the alternative of paying massive insurance premiums on such a huge asset base.

There are other policies most people buy such as car insurance. No need for the state involvement there, indeed with higher premiums it’s likely to lead to more careful driving.

Commercial buildings will cop it but over time this added cost will reflect in higher rents.

Currently, there’s a world-wide trend, as in New Zealand, to cut back on the massive and in many cases, ludicrous growth of central government bureaucracies which have evolved over the last half century.

But no-one is suggesting no role for central governments, rather the attacks are on the evolvement of nonsensical and indulgent activities, of which there are many.

This has arisen for the reason I’ve out-lined before in this Blog, specifically that all expenditure comes into two categories.

First there’s sensible well considered purchasing specifically when people are spending their own money.

Then there’s the cavalier thoughtless expenditure this when people are spending others money. That’s by far the biggest category and applies to central and local governments and managers of large corporations.

 

12 Comments

Should you elect to only insure 50% of your home’s value an insurer would only accept that if the remainder was regarded as “self insured” therefore “average” would be applied and every claim would be met by the insurers as to their percentage held. That would mean with a 50/50 split each claim would be settled to 50% by the commercial insurer with the balance met by the other “insurer”, the homeowner.

Now that’s fine for small claims but few homeowners would be able to match a substantial claim 50/50, in my opinion.

There’s cross subsidization everywhere….

The way to better the system is to form ones own insurance syndicate, and limit it to properties that are not exposed to elevated risk…

The brethrens do it, and I would suggest there are opportunities for others to organise private syndicates also….perhaps the only thing stopping it is lazy insurance brokers and central government regulation that may discourage or inhibit this…

We have a family one of sorts….

stuartmitchell9d22410e48 January 27, 2025 at 2:20 pm

Well thought through Bob. Some large corporations and governments (not sure about our govt) insure themselves..this being called a “Captive”
They can, if they like “lay off” part of the risk. I.E. reinsure part of the risk. Lloyds of London
do accept such risks for example.
Stuart

Insuring a house for half its value is not easy. I have a rental property in Palmerston North which is worth about $500k. That value is split roughly $380k for the land and $120k for the bog standard 1950s 120 sq metre house. I tried 3 insurance company to insure for $120k but they all wanted to quote for a $450k replacement house. If my name was Onassis, I would buy the insurance and then burn the house down as I would be left with a $450k house sitting on a $380k section.

Thank you for the valuable and insightful information.

The Insurer’s spread the risk
Bureaucracies make it so much worse. Both local government and central government
Earthquake drama and flood zone drama and of course the insurers take note
My property is 3000 sq mt. Bottom corner now zoned flood area. The flood zone area is 2 inches lower than the flood free area. So in a 1 in 100 year flood if I walk there in my slippers I will get my feet wet
Zero response from the idiots at the council when I pointed this out to them

    I work for a council in the building department. The flood mapping is ridiculous. I’ve seen flood areas on top of hills but not at the bottom or sides, and other anomalies. It is possible to get an independent assessment for building approval purposes, but that won’t change the council map. One such assessment for a subdivision on a level part of town had the level a metre lower than the surrounding houses, and the subdivision was approved without any flood risk mitigation. The map didn’t change.

    Hi Lindsay,
    Have you considered asking your insurer to agree to put a 6″ flood deductible on your policy.
    You cover the first 6″ and the insurer covers anything above that?
    Ross

I don’t anticipate an insurance crisis. There are a few things to ponder…never let the insurance company dictate the value of any of your possessions. With realty they’ll inevitably toss in the value of the land which is not insurable. Insurance premier costs do spike but the market ultimately resets them. In the early 1990s there was a spate of defalcations made by numerous lawyers throughout NZ. A firm in Upper Hutt being the worst example. This conduct led to a steep rise in costs of insurances for all other lawyers innocent or not. It was not unheard of for a PI premium to double from circa $50K pa to around the $100K pa. Some lawyers, foolishly opted out of covering themselves (a practice no longer tolerated) so as the market contracted the insurers began to realise they were over-pricing their product and down came the costs. In other words insurance costs are cyclical and do actually reflect the numbers of upheld claims they are hit with.

Hi Bob,
You have raised an issue that is close to my heart. I have been in and close to the NZ industry for more than 60 years and, have witnessed many changes. Too many to list here but I now intend to put my thoughts on paper and send them to you and hope you think them worth reading.
Cheers Ross

Why do we need to cover international losses arguably caused by mismanagement beyond our control? Wouldn’t it be better for the Government as well as self-insuring its own property to be the backup for the kind of Act of God catastrophes that local insurers can’t cover themselves? As anyway was necessary in the Chch earthquake?

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

[…] THE COMING INSURANCE CRISIS […]

Leave a Reply to Good SamaritianCancel reply

Discover more from No Punches Pulled

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading