So, hard on the heels from this article on Stuff (with, IHMO, an overly sensational headline, but that's a comment for a different thread), and also a similar piece on TV News; I have the email from my insurance provider advising that our premiums are going up at the next renewal. 

The stated reason is "the difference in risk across the country hasn’t always been reflected in the price you pay for your insurance".

Fair enough; more "stable" parts of the country (hmmmm, are there any??) probably carry less risk WRT earthquake, for example, so should have less than "Average" loading; more shakey parts, more loading.  I'm not really opposed to that, it does make business sense from the Insurer's point of view.

However, I do wonder how "granular" their modelling is.  Does it tar everyone in (for example, Wellington) with the same brush, or does it take into account the significant differences between (for example) people in the Hutt Valley floor vs people higher in the hills on more solid ground.  Especially as one of the loadings is apparently around flooding.

Does anyone work in the sector who may know, and would be willing to share?

And yes, I'll accept "sorry, commercially sensitive information" as an answer.