Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
15616 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3044

Trusted

  Reply # 2125277 14-Nov-2018 08:34
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

There are a few events that are due or over due. The whole of the South Island is high risk due to the Transalpine fault which is due to rupture, when that happens it is expected to be well above 8 on the richter scale and the entire South Island will be badly affected. The next is the Hikurangi subduction zone off the east coast of the North Island. That again is expected to be around 8 and large chunks of the North Island and parts of the South Island are at risk from the shaking and Tsunami. The Wellington fault which is linked to the Transalpine is over due and an event up to 8 is expected. If this fault is triggered by a rupture of the Tansalpine then a two thirds of New Zealand could be badly affected by that event.

 

Then there is the massive man made disaster, climate change and the whole country will be affected by increased severe weather events and coastal inundation, the impact of the inundation will be felt far inland due to changes in river flows and ground water levels. Lastly there the ever present risk of volcanic activity over a large chunk of Aotearoa.

 

 

 

Oh and one more thing, wild fires, they are a potential risk as the climate changes. Damm its depressing.

 

 

Well put, that pretty much covers everything, the new normal as the cliche goes. Perhaps companies can list all the possible factors that a homeowner can do to reduce the premium. Less or lower or further away trees, drainage changes, reinforcing, anything that lowers exposure that the homeowner can use to reduce premiums. 


3677 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2150

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2125278 14-Nov-2018 08:38
Send private message

Bluntj:

 

You clearly arent thinking of the larger picture where only one third of the Country can afford to pay so when a disaster strikes the State has no choice but to pay out for the uninsured.

 

 

I'll never understand that thinking.. People who chose to not find the money for insurance and then expect assistance really annoy me. I chose to sacrifice luxuries to make sure I have comprehensive insurance for myself and my family(contents, medical, life, etc), yet others would rather spend money on ciggies, booze, fancy cars etc than pay for insurance, and when something bad happens, expect a hand out from the rest of us.

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.


 
 
 
 


8139 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4423


  Reply # 2125310 14-Nov-2018 08:39
Send private message

driller2000:

 

Fred99:

 

driller2000:

 

Yes. 100%.

 

And the risks can and are quantified statistically whether that be EQ, flooding, coastal inundation, storm surge etc.

 

And no way should those in lower risk areas subsidise those in higher risk areas.

 

 

Except they really don't have much of a clue.  

 

Doesn't matter though, because in the aftermath of "unexpected" natural disasters, insurance company revenues always rise as they hike premiums.

 

It's a casino where the house wins.

 

 

 

 

As a civil engineer I deal with risk based assessments for hazards on a regular basis - incl:

 

  • for flooding (as it pertains to flood modelling, risk assessments, climate change adaption, storm surge and coastal hazard mapping)
  • for earthquakes (as it pertains to risk classification by area / historic return periods and how these are applied via loading codes)
  • geotechnical risks (again via investigation and specific design and how this is applied to specific properties via hazard maps)
  • and even wind risk for (again applied via loading codes.)

 

 

So to those who say they/we don't know - we do.

 

PS: And this info is also accessed by insurance companies when they assess risks and premiums - in conjunction with historic events and claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't really. You're drawing data from other sciences, relying on accuracy of their modelling which may or may not be right, and historical records which don't go back far enough.

 

Which isn't very good - as far as earthquake and volcanic modelling goes.  There's a far higher probability that Akl would be disrupted by a local volcanic eruption than Chch taking a direct hit from a quake, yet here we all are 7 years and $50 billion down the track, sometimes hunting for historic data to show that "we knew that could happen" - when nah - not really - we didn't expect it.


15616 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3044

Trusted

  Reply # 2125314 14-Nov-2018 08:48
Send private message

driller2000:

 

Fred99:

 

driller2000:

 

Yes. 100%.

 

And the risks can and are quantified statistically whether that be EQ, flooding, coastal inundation, storm surge etc.

 

And no way should those in lower risk areas subsidise those in higher risk areas.

 

 

Except they really don't have much of a clue.  

 

Doesn't matter though, because in the aftermath of "unexpected" natural disasters, insurance company revenues always rise as they hike premiums.

 

It's a casino where the house wins.

 

 

 

 

As a civil engineer I deal with risk based assessments for hazards on a regular basis - incl:

 

  • for flooding (as it pertains to flood modelling, risk assessments, climate change adaption, storm surge and coastal hazard mapping)
  • for earthquakes (as it pertains to risk classification by area / historic return periods and how these are applied via loading codes)
  • geotechnical risks (again via investigation and specific design and how this is applied to specific properties via hazard maps)
  • and even wind risk for (again applied via loading codes.)

 

 

So to those who say they/we don't know - we do.

 

PS: And this info is also accessed by insurance companies when they assess risks and premiums - in conjunction with historic events and claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What steps did you manage with your clients pre ChCh, Kaikoura, Wellington as you knew they were about to happen? IIRC Kaikoura was an unknown fault system. 


2184 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 425

Trusted

  Reply # 2125318 14-Nov-2018 08:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

Lias:

 

Bluntj:

 

You clearly arent thinking of the larger picture where only one third of the Country can afford to pay so when a disaster strikes the State has no choice but to pay out for the uninsured.

 

 

I'll never understand that thinking.. People who chose to not find the money for insurance and then expect assistance really annoy me. I chose to sacrifice luxuries to make sure I have comprehensive insurance for myself and my family(contents, medical, life, etc), yet others would rather spend money on ciggies, booze, fancy cars etc than pay for insurance, and when something bad happens, expect a hand out from the rest of us.

 

 

 

 

Being fully insured sucks - it's expensive, I get that. But we live in a society, so even if you have a fully insured bubble for your family, what happens to your neighbours after a disaster still affects you - you might find your newly rebuilt house is surrounded by abandoned piles of rubble, or desperate members of society resort to stealing to survive because they are financially ruined (not condoning it - but acknowledging that it will happen).

 

The key for a govt is to make sure people are incentivised to insure and not expect a massive handout. EQC is quite useful for that - it means that nearly everyone can get at least a bit of disaster insurance at a reasonable flat rate. It's just become less useful as the $100k cap won't cover anyone's sum insured, so you need to get (say for $300k sum insured) $200k of market priced insurance in order to get your $100k of flat rate socialised insurance


296 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 123


  Reply # 2125334 14-Nov-2018 09:24
Send private message

I was talking about the scenario where the average homeowner (say in Wellington) is asked to pay $10-$15k per annum just for house insurance. Maybe you could afford that, but lots of households simply couldnt find that money year after year.

 

Of course when premiums are at todays levels there is no excuse to not being insured.


3677 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2150

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2125380 14-Nov-2018 09:54
Send private message

nickb800:

 

or desperate members of society resort to stealing to survive because they are financially ruined (not condoning it - but acknowledging that it will happen).

 

 

And that is why I am envious of the 1%'s who can afford an apocalypse bunker with lots of guns :-P 

 

 

 

 





Information wants to be free. The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.




1051 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 203


  Reply # 2126580 14-Nov-2018 14:28
Send private message

Another thing that insurance companies tend to do with home insurance, is to increase each year the sum insured by some arbitrary percentage (such as 5% or 10%) without asking you first whether you want this.


You can, of course phone and ask not to increase the sum insured, but this takes time. So, part of what appears to be a large increase in the cost of your home insurance each year is due to the fact that the sum insured has been increased.


I realise that the rating valuation (RV) is only an estimate, but if, for example, a recent RV is $600,000 (land $300,000 plus building $300,000) what would you think is a reasonable amount to insure the building for, $300,000 or $350,000, or $400,000 or more?


The insurance companies say that the RV of the building is not an adequate amount to insure the building for, because the replacement cost of the building is always substantially higher than its RV. But it's difficult to decide how much higher than RV you need to insure the building for.


So, is it worth paying more for home insurance to get a building valuation that's substantially above its RV, when you will only need a high amount if the building is a complete write-off?


14730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1990


  Reply # 2126756 14-Nov-2018 18:33
Send private message

frednz:

 

 

 

The insurance companies say that the RV of the building is not an adequate amount to insure the building for, because the replacement cost of the building is always substantially higher than its RV. But it's difficult to decide how much higher than RV you need to insure the building for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why some people get a rebuild valuation as well. I believe their is also a very crude calculator for working it out.


14730 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1990


  Reply # 2126758 14-Nov-2018 18:42
Send private message

nickb800:

 

 

 

Being fully insured sucks - it's expensive, I get that. But we live in a society, so even if you have a fully insured bubble for your family, what happens to your neighbours after a disaster still affects you - you might find your newly rebuilt house is surrounded by abandoned piles of rubble, or desperate members of society resort to stealing to survive because they are financially ruined (not condoning it - but acknowledging that it will happen).

 

The key for a govt is to make sure people are incentivised to insure and not expect a massive handout. EQC is quite useful for that - it means that nearly everyone can get at least a bit of disaster insurance at a reasonable flat rate. It's just become less useful as the $100k cap won't cover anyone's sum insured, so you need to get (say for $300k sum insured) $200k of market priced insurance in order to get your $100k of flat rate socialised insurance

 

 

 

 

IMO it makes sense in a country like NZ, especially as we have things like ACC and state funded healthcare that service a similar purpose. But things like EQC payments need to be adjusted annually with the increased price of building. NZ is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff country, so it is only identified as a problem, when it becomes a problem. Then we have enquiries into why the problem occurred in the first place.


22 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 6

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 2126770 14-Nov-2018 19:22
Send private message

Guy I work with had his premiere jump from $1300 to over $3000 with Tower because he lived an area of high risk (Palmerston North). He has subsequently changed insurance company and paying about the original premium.

 

 

 

An insurance broker told him the Area of High Risk is anywhere south of a line drawn from Gisborne to Patea.




1051 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 203


  Reply # 2126792 14-Nov-2018 20:19
Send private message

mattwnz:

 

frednz:

 

 

 

The insurance companies say that the RV of the building is not an adequate amount to insure the building for, because the replacement cost of the building is always substantially higher than its RV. But it's difficult to decide how much higher than RV you need to insure the building for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is why some people get a rebuild valuation as well. I believe their is also a very crude calculator for working it out.

 

 

Thanks, yes there is this calculator:

 

http://need2know.org.nz/what-you-need-to-do/calculator/


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

NZ and France seek to end use of social media for acts of terrorism
Posted 24-Apr-2019 12:13


Intel introduces the 9th Gen Intel Core mobile processors
Posted 24-Apr-2019 12:03


Spark partners with OPPO to bring new AX5s smartphone to New Zealand
Posted 24-Apr-2019 09:54


Orcon announces new always-on internet service for Small Business
Posted 18-Apr-2019 10:19


Spark Sport prices for Rugby World Cup 2019 announced
Posted 16-Apr-2019 07:58


2degrees launches new unlimited mobile plan
Posted 15-Apr-2019 09:35


Redgate brings together major industry speakers for SQL in the City Summits
Posted 13-Apr-2019 12:35


Exported honey authenticated on Blockchain
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:19


HPE and Nutanix partner to deliver hybrid cloud as a service
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:12


Southern Cross and ASN sign contract for Southern Cross NEXT
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:09


Data security top New Zealand consumer priority when choosing a bank
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:07


Samsung announces first 8K screens to hit New Zealand
Posted 10-Apr-2019 21:03


New cyber-protection and insurance product for businesses launched in APAC
Posted 10-Apr-2019 20:59


Kiwis ensure streaming is never interrupted by opting for uncapped broadband plans
Posted 7-Apr-2019 09:05


DHL Express introduces new MyDHL+ online portal to make shipping easier
Posted 7-Apr-2019 08:51



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.