preventing disaster after a disaster: lessons for canada ... · preventing disaster after a...

Studies in

August 2011

Financial Policy

Preventing Disaster after a Disaster: Lessons for Canada

from US Experienceby Neil Mohindra

Key Conclusions

Insurers and policyholders face several challenges after natural disas-ters, including some caused by government regulation. After Hurricane Katrina, many victims had insurance against wind damage, which was covered in standard insurance policies, but not flood damage, which was available only through a government program. The split in cover-age resulted in payment delays and legal disputes.

In Canada, a natural disaster capable of causing Katrina-level damage is an earthquake. There is a 30 per cent chance that an earthquake strong enough to cause significant damage will strike southwestern British Columbia in the next 50 years, and a 5-15 per cent chance that a major earthquake will strike southern Quebec or eastern Ontario.

Provincial legislation makes a distinction between damage caused by earthquakes and damage caused by subsequent fires. The US experi-ence shows that this approach could cause problems for insurers and policyholders.

Splitting insurance coverage for a natural disaster should be avoided. Allowing insurers to offer comprehensive coverage against damage from the quake and quake-related fires will prevent many of the prob-lems consumers faced following Katrina.

Brief summary

There is a 30 per cent chance that an earth quake strong enough to cause sig nif i cantdam age will strike south west ern Brit ish Co lum bia in the next 50 years, and a 5-15 percent chance that a ma jor earth quake will strike south ern Que bec or east ern On tario.These quake zones en com pass sev eral pop u la tion cen ters, in clud ing Van cou ver, Vic -to ria, Mon treal, Ot tawa, and Que bec City. If a ma jor quake ever strikes one of these re -gions, rent ers, home own ers, and busi nesses will count on in sur ance to help themre cover and re build. How ever, in ad di tion to the hard ships caused by prop erty loss and in jury, pol i cy hold ers may face ma jor im ped i ments to re cov ery when in sur ance cov er -age from a nat u ral di sas ter is split—a harsh les son many Amer i cans learned in 2005,af ter the US Gulf Coast was struck by a se ries of ma jor hur ri canes, in clud ing Hur ri cane Katrina.

The prob lems that occurred in the after math of Katrina dem on strate what canhap pen when dis tinc tions are made in insur ance cov er age based on the cause of dam -age. Many of Katrina’s vic tims had insur ance against wind dam age, which was cov ered in stan dard insur ance pol i cies, but not flood dam age, which was avail able onlythrough a gov ern ment pro gram. The split in cov er age resulted in costly pay mentdelays and legal dis putes.

Pro vin cial leg is la tion makes a sim i lar dis tinc tion between dam age caused by anearth quake and dam age caused by sub se quent quake-related fires. Fire fol low ing anearth quake is cov ered in stan dard home insur ance pack ages, while earth quake cov er -age must be pur chased sep a rately. Alberta and BC have sig naled their inten tion tomain tain this dis tinc tion. The US expe ri ence shows that this approach could causeunnec es sary hard ships for insur ers and pol i cy hold ers alike.

The les son from Hur ri cane Katrina is clear. Split ting nat u ral disas ter insur ancecov er age should be avoided wher ever pos si ble. Allow ing insur ers to offer com pre hen -sive cov er age against dam age from a quake and any quake-related fires will pre ventmany of the prob lems pol i cy hold ers faced fol low ing Katrina.

Fra ser Insti tute 4 www.fraserinstitute.org

2 4 Preventing Disaster after a Disaster: Lessons for Canada from US Experience 4 August 2011


Preventing Disaster after a Disaster: Lessons for Canada from US Experience 4 August 2011 4 3

Contents

Brief Summary 4 ii

Executive summary 4 5

Introduction 4 6

The earthquake risk in Canada 4 8

The Hur ri cane Katrina case 4 9

Split cov er age and the insur ance of Cana dian earth quake risk 4 15

Earth quake after math: What we can expect 4 18

Con clu sions 4 19

Appen dix 1: The 1906 San Fran cisco earth quake and claims expan sion 4 20

References 4 21

About the author 4 25

Publishing information 4 26

Sup port ing the Fra ser In sti tute 4 27

About the Fraser Institute 4 28

Editorial Advisory Board 4 30

Executive summary

Two re gions in Can ada have been iden ti fied where a ma jor earth quake is likely tocause sig nif i cant dam age: south-west ern Brit ish Co lum bia, in clud ing Van cou ver andVic to ria; and south ern Que bec and east ern On tario in clud ing Mon treal, Ot tawa, andQue bec City. Dam age from an earth quake can re sult from the ground shak ing, or from a fire that is ig nited as a re sult of the earth quake.

Fol low ing a disas ter, it is impor tant that insur ance cus tom ers receive theircheques fast to both avoid unnec es sary hard ship and expe dite recov ery. How ever,pro vin cial insur ance laws serve as a major imped i ment to this hap pen ing because theymake a dis tinc tion between insur ance cov er age for dam age caused by the groundshak ing and fires that fol low from an earth quake. Fire fol low ing an earth quake isincluded in stan dard home insur ance pack ages while ground shak ing cov er age mustbe pur chased sep a rately. Alberta and BC have reviewed their insur ance leg is la tion andhave sig nalled their inten tions of main tain ing the dis tinc tion, a pol icy deci sion thatcan be expected to cre ate sig nif i cant unnec es sary hard ship for vic tims should anearth quake occur.

The US Gulf coast was struck in 2005 by a series of major hur ri canes, includ ingHur ri cane Katrina, which was respon si ble for between 1,300 and 1,500 fatal i ties andover US$57 bil lion in insured losses to pri vate insur ers and the US gov ern ment floodinsur ance pro gram. The prob lems that occurred in the after math of Hur ri caneKatrina dem on strated what can hap pen when a dis tinc tion is made in insur ance cov -er age based on the cause of dam age result ing from the same nat u ral disas ter.

In Hur ri cane Katrina’s case, wind dam age was cov ered under stan dard pri vatehome insur ance pol i cies, while flood cov er age was avail able sep a rately through a USgov ern ment pro gram. Many vic tims of the hur ri cane had cov er age through their pri -vate insur ance for wind dam age but had not pur chased sep a rate flood insur ance. Thesep a ra tion in cov er age exac er bated the costs asso ci ated with the storm. These costsincluded pay ment delays, court chal lenges, dis pute res o lu tion costs, claims expan sion, and disas ter relief. For instance, a com mon prob lem fol low ing the storm was deter -min ing the extent of dam age caused by wind ver sus the dam age caused by flood ing. Inmany cases, the flood washed away any evi dence of dam age, leav ing only a slab where a house had once stood.

The les son from Hur ri cane Katrina is clear. Split ting nat u ral disas ter insur ancecov er age should be avoided where pos si ble. There are cir cum stances where this maynot be avoid able, such as where a peril is unin sur able. How ever, this is not the case forearth quake risk in Can ada. Allow ing insur ers to offer com pre hen sive cov er age againstdam age from both the ground shak ing and the fire fol low ing will avoid the prob lemsthat home and busi ness own ers faced en masse fol low ing Katrina.



Intro duc tion

Af ter a ma jor nat u ral di sas ter strikes a densely pop u lated area, prompt pay ment of in -sur ance claims plays a crit i cal role in the area’s re cov ery, for the wider econ omy gen er -ally, but par tic u larly for in di vid ual fam i lies. For in stance, in sur ance pay ments helphome own ers with their im me di ate shel ter costs and the ex pense of re con struct ingtheir homes; they also en able busi nesses to quickly re pair their build ings and re stocktheir sup plies. In sur ance com pa nies face sev eral chal lenges in meet ing claims af ter adi sas ter. One is deal ing with the sheer num ber of in di vid ual claims that hap pen at thesame time. An other is lim ited ac cess to the di sas ter area be cause of dam age to roads,bridges, and other in fra struc ture. One fur ther and un nec es sary prob lem may be cre -ated by reg u la tion that makes dis putes be tween in sur ers and con sum ers more—andnot less—likely af ter a ma jor di sas ter. Thus, policymakers need to ask them selves what pol i cies should be in place to en sure the in sur ance in dus try plays as ef fec tive a role aspos si ble in as sist ing the re gion’s speedy re cov ery by re duc ing any ob sta cles to promptpay ment of claims.

When hur ri canes, includ ing Hur ri cane Katrina, struck the U.S. Gulf coast in2005, many vic tims of the storm had insur ance against wind dam age, which was cov -ered in stan dard pri vate insur ance pol i cies, but not flood dam age, which was avail ableonly through a US gov ern ment pro gram. Both per ils caused sig nif i cant dam age. Thesplit in cov er age resulted in prob lems after the hur ri cane struck, includ ing delays ininsur ance pay ments and dis putes between insur ers and their cus tom ers as to whetherdam age costs were cov ered under insur ance pol i cies.

In Can ada, a nat u ral disas ter capa ble of caus ing a com pa ra ble scale of dam age toHur ri cane Katrina is a major earth quake.

Pro vin cial insur ance leg is la tion makes a dis tinc tion between earth quake dam age caused by the ground shak ing and the dam age caused by any sub se quent fire ignited by the earth quake (fire fol low ing an earth quake).1 This study will exam ine the fall out inthe US from Hur ri cane Katrina on insured losses, and what les sons can be drawn forinsur ance earth quake cov er age in Can ada where pro vin cial leg is la tion has resulted insep a rate insur ance cov er age for ground shak ing and for sub se quent fire. The first sec -tion describes the risks of a major earth quake hap pen ing in Can ada. This is fol lowedby a review of the insured losses result ing from Hur ri cane Katrina and the prob lems



1 Earth quakes under water can trig ger another peril: tsu na mis. Tsu na mis are waves gen er ated by a sud dendis place ment of water. The areas in Can ada most prone to tsu na mis are the west coast of the Queen Char -lotte Islands (recently renamed Haida Gwaii) and the west coast of Van cou ver Island (Kovacs, 2010).

that were caused by the dis tinc tion between wind and flood dam age. The third sec tiondis cusses the cur rent sta tus of pro vin cial insur ance leg is la tion. The fourth sec tionexam ines whether the dis tinc tion made between fire-fol low ing and ground shak inginsur ance cov er age under pro vin cial insur ance leg is la tion could be prob lem atic afteran earth quake based on the expe ri ences encoun tered after Hur ri cane Katrina. Thecon clu sion fol lows.



The earthquake risk in Can ada

An earth quake oc curs when rocks break and slip along a fault in the earth. Earth -quakes are caused by the slow de for ma tion of the outer por tions of the earth’s out er -most layer of crust.

While earth quakes occur across much of Can ada, there are two regions where amajor earth quake is likely to cause sig nif i cant dam age. Kovacs (2010) states that thatthere is at least a 30 per cent chance that an earth quake strong enough to cause sig nif i -cant dam age will strike south-west ern Brit ish Colum bia in the next 50 years, a regionthat includes Van cou ver and Vic to ria. There is a 5 to 15 per cent chance that a dam ag -ing earth quake will strike south ern Que bec or east ern Ontario in the next 50 years, aregion that includes Mon treal, Ottawa, and Que bec City.

The Munich Rein sur ance Com pany of Can ada com mis sioned a study, pub lishedin 1992, to assess the impact of a 6.5 mag ni tude earth quake located near Van cou ver(Kovacs, 2010). The study esti mated eco nomic losses of between CA$14 and CA$32bil lion (CA$20 and CA$42 bil lion in today’s dol lars) with insured claims pre dicted tobe between CA$7 and CA$13 bil lion (CA$10 and CA$18 bil lion in today’s dol lars).

Ground shak ing and fire fol low ing

Dam age from an earth quake can re sult from the ground shak ing, or from a fire that ig -nites as a re sult of the earth quake. Dam ages from fires fol low ing an earth quake can bequite se vere be cause bro ken gas mains fuel the fires, wa ter sup plies used to fight thefires are cur tailed, and fire en gines may not be able to travel on blocked roads (OSFI,1998).

RMS (2006) describes the ground shak ing and fire fol low ing dam ages from the1906 San Fran cisco Earth quake. Ground shak ing dam age included wooden housestorn off their foun da tions, masonry build ings crum bled, and brick chim neys col -lapsed. Sixty fires were reported in down town San Fran cisco and it took three days tosup press them, dur ing which 28,000 prop er ties were destroyed.

The Insti tute for Cat a strophic Loss Reduc tion com mis sioned a study in 2001that pro vided an esti mate of the fire dam age in Van cou ver that would fol low a majorearth quake; its esti mates for var i ous earth quake disas ter sce nar ios ranged from CA$1bil lion to CA$9 bil lion (Kovacs, 2010).



The Hur ri cane Katrina case

Hur ri canes are trop i cal storms as so ci ated with heavy rains and high winds. In Au gust2005, Hur ri cane Ka trina hit the US Gulf Coast re gion, se ri ously af fect ing Lou i si ana,Mis sis sippi, and Al a bama. Hur ri cane Ka trina was dif fer ent from other hur ri canes be -cause of the ex ten sive flood ing that re sulted from the re cord storm surge (ab nor malrises in sea level) and the breach ing of three lev ees that pro tected New Or leans fromLake Pontchartrain and the Mis sis sippi River (King, 2008). The storm re sulted in be -tween 1,300 and 1,500 fa tal i ties (Hartwig and Wilkinson, 2010).

The hur ri cane was the cost li est in US his tory. It caused an esti mated US$41.1 bil -lion in pri vate insur ance losses and a fur ther US$16.1 bil lion in losses from flood inginsured by the National Flood Insur ance Pro gram, a pro gram oper ated by the US gov -ern ment (Hartwig and Wilkinson, 2010).

Fol low ing the storm, sig nif i cant ques tions were raised over insur ance cov er age.An in-depth dis cus sion shows how these issues exac er bated the costs asso ci ated withthe storm. The costs included pay ment delays, court chal lenges, dis pute res o lu tioncosts, claims expan sion, and disas ter relief. The dis putes over cov er age cen tredaround the cause of the dam age: was it wind or water?

Wind ver sus water

The dam age caused by hur ri canes is a re sult of ei ther strong winds or flood ing. Whilestan dard US home in sur ance pol i cies pro vide cov er age against storm dam age, thesepol i cies ex clude dam age from sur face wa ter, in clud ing storm surges caused by hur ri -canes. Flood in sur ance is avail able through a US fed eral pro gram, the Na tional FloodIn sur ance Pro gram. The fed eral pro gram was cre ated in 1968 in re sponse to the ris ingcost of tax payer-funded di sas ter re lief for flood vic tims and the in creas ing amount ofdam age caused by floods (Hartwig and Wilkinson, 2005). The pro gram makes fed er -ally-backed flood in sur ance avail able for res i den tial and com mer cial prop er ties incom mu ni ties that agree to adopt and en force floodplain man age ment or di nances tore duce fu ture flood dam age. Fewer than 20 per cent of home own ers in coastal Mis sis -sippi pur chased flood in sur ance prior to Hur ri cane Ka trina, whereas up wards of 60 to80 per cent of homes in some Lou i si ana par ishes had flood cov er age (Hartwig, 2007).

The dis tinc tion between cov er age pro vided by pri vate insur ers and that pro vided by the fed eral pro gram cre ated a sig nif i cant prob lem for home own ers and their insur -ers sub se quent to Katrina as they tried to deter mine whether the dam age was cov ered



by insur ance. The Gov ern ment Account abil ity Office (2008) notes that deter min ingthe extent of the dam age caused by each peril can be dif fi cult; that leads to dis putesbetween pol i cy hold ers and pri vate insur ers and delays in the pay ments that prop ertyown ers need for day-to-day liv ing and rebuild ing expenses. The GAO report cites theunprec e dented dam age from the 2005 hur ri canes, includ ing Katrina, which led to dis -putes between pol i cy hold ers and insur ers over the extent of what dam age would becov ered under a home owner’s pol icy when both high winds and flood ing occurred.

The cov er age dis putes in the after math of Katrina took two forms. Reg u la torsand pol i cy hold ers chal lenged the valid ity of the exclu sions to flood dam age. As well,there were dis putes over whether wind or flood ing was the cause of spe cific dam age.

a) Legal chal lenges to exclu sionsReg u la tors and pol i cy hold ers chal lenged ex clu sions in the courts over both their va lid -ity and whether they ap plied to the spe cific de vel op ments fol low ing from Hur ri caneKa trina. On Sep tem ber 15, 2005, Mis sis sippi At tor ney Gen eral Jim Hood filed a law -suit against five in sur ers al leg ing that the flood ex clu sions they had writ ten into home -owner pol i cies were void and un en force able be cause they vi o lated pub lic pol icy, wereun rea son ably fa vour able to in sur ers, and were am big u ous (Mealy’s Lit i ga tion Re port,2005). The At tor ney Gen eral also ar gued that the ex clu sions vi o lated the Mis sis sippiCon sumer Pro tec tion Act and Mis sis sippi com mon law, which man date that full cov -er age be pro vided if the prox i mate and ef fi cient cause of the dam age (i.e., hur ri canewind) is cov ered un der the pol icy even if other non-cov ered causes also con trib uted tothe loss. In other words, if some dam age was caused by wind and fur ther dam age wascaused by flood, all the dam age should be cov ered by the in sur ance pol icy. The suit was dis missed in De cem ber 2008 on the ba sis that the At tor ney Gen eral never had thestand ing nec es sary to pur sue the mat ter (O’Brien, 2009). Prior to the de ci sion, three ofthe five in sur ance com pa nies agreed to set tle ments.

Pol i cy hold ers also chal lenged insur ers in the courts over the exclu sions on thebasis that hur ri cane wind was the prox i mate cause of water dam age. A US dis trictcourt ruled in August 2006 in a case brought against Nation wide Insur ance that theexclu sions for dam age caused by water were valid and enforce able (Rob ert RedfearnJr., 2006). How ever, the court found that pro vi sions that excluded cov er age in itsentirety when dam age was caused by a mix of a cov ered and non-cov ered per ils wereambig u ous. One year later, Nation wide won a rul ing in the Fifth Cir cuit Court ofAppeals; the Court held that the pro vi sions were not ambig u ous (Mohr, 2007).

In Lou i si ana, law suits were brought on the prem ise that the prox i mate cause ofdam age was not flood ing but poorly main tained lev ees. In April 2008, this issue wasulti mately set tled by the Lou i si ana Supreme Court; in a case brought against the Lafay -ette Insur ance Com pany, the Court ruled that the flood exclu sion in the insurer’s pol -



icy, which cov ered a New Orleans apart ment build ing, applied to dam ages even from a flood caused by breaks in poorly-main tained lev ees (Reuters, 2008).

Hartwig and Wilkinson (2010) note that insur ers ulti mately won vir tu ally everymajor case that was filed against them. How ever, defend ing the lit i ga tion cost insur erssub stan tial mil lions of dol lars in time and money.

b) Cause of dam age dis putesThe sec ond kind of dis pute was over whether dam age was caused by wind or wa ter.Dam age un der a stan dard home owner’s pol icy was only cov ered if the dam age wascaused by wind. In these dis putes, the in surer com monly found the cause of dam age tobe wa ter, while the cus tomer con tended that the cause was wind. Many of these caseswere “slab” claims, where noth ing was left of an in sured’s res i dence ex cept the foun da -tion upon which it was built. Ken neth Abra ham (2007) de scribes the prob lem:

Res i dents of the coastal ar eas of Lou i si ana and Mis sis sippi evac u ated their prop -erty as Ka trina ap proached. As the hur ri cane winds came ashore, they broughtwith them a pow er ful storm surge that washed away build ings. But which build -ings had been de stroyed by wind, and which by storm surge, was not al ways clear. When res i dents re turned af ter Ka trina had passed, they sim ply found that theirhomes had been dam aged or de stroyed. If the dam age or de struc tion was causedby wind, there was cov er age. But if the dam age or de struc tion was caused byflood, the in surer ar gu ably had a de fence. Vast num bers of claims were there forede pend ent on ef forts to de ter mine what exactly had occurred while no one waspresent.

Insur ers that had ini tially denied claims in slab cases or where cause of dam agewas unclear came under reg u la tory and court pres sure to review those deci sions. Toset tle a class action law suit and resolve lit i ga tion by the Mis sis sippi Attor ney Gen eral,State Farm agreed in Jan u ary 2007 to reopen thou sands of Katrina claims (Kern,2007b). The agree ment included a num ber of con di tions. It spec i fied that where only aslab or pier remained, a min i mum offer must be made of at least 50 per cent of the pol -icy limit for struc tural dam age, and where a claim pro ceeded to arbi tra tion, State Farm was to pay the costs of the arbi ters cho sen by both sides.

In April 2007, the Mis sis sippi Insur ance Depart ment announced that anothercom pany, the Nation wide Insur ance Com pany, agreed to vol un tarily re-eval u ate Hur -ri cane Katrina slab cases (Mis sis sippi State Insur ance Depart ment, 2007b). By the endof 2007, the State Farm and Nation wide re-eval u a tion pro grams had resulted in anaddi tional US110 mil lion in addi tional claims pay ments being made (Mis sis sippi StateInsur ance Depart ment, 2007a).



Medi a tion was exten sively used to resolve dis putes between insur ers and theircus tom ers. In Mis sis sippi, the State Insur ance Depart ment estab lished the Hur ri caneKatrina Medi a tion Pro gram, a non-bind ing dis pute res o lu tion pro ce dure, to facil i tatethe res o lu tion of claims. By mid-Decem ber 2007, over 4,500 medi a tion requests hadbeen made (Mis sis sippi State Insur ance Depart ment, 2007a).

One year fol low ing Katrina, approx i mately 56,000 home owner claims in Lou i si -ana and Mis sis sippi remained unre solved, rep re sent ing just over five per cent of thetotal (Insur ance Infor ma tion Insti tute, 2006). About 20,000 of these claims were beingdis puted in medi a tion or lit i ga tion. By Katrina’s sec ond anni ver sary, one per cent ofper sonal prop erty claims remained unre solved (Hartwig and Wilkinson, 2010).

Claims expan sion

Af ter Ka trina, state reg u la tors made a de ter mined ef fort to cre ate cov er age for ex -cluded risks, which the in sur ance in dus try strongly re sisted. While in sur ers suc cess -fully de fended them selves in the courts from hav ing flood ex clu sions over turned,reg u la tory pres sure con trib uted to in sur ers pro ceed ing with set tle ment of fers in caseswhere they had ini tially de ter mined flood to be the cause of loss. Abra ham (2007)notes that the fact that ma jor in sur ers chose to set tle claims en masse sug gests that thethreat of ad verse con se quences for in sur ers who did not co op er ate cre ated strong in -cen tives for them to set tle.

Mar shall and Neale (2006) exam ined what the direct costs to insur ers wouldhave been had the flood exclu sions been over turned in Mis sis sippi. They esti mate thetotal cost of flood claims would have exceeded US$4 bil lion—seven times greater thanthe total pre mi ums col lected in the state for prop erty and casu alty insur ance in 2005.Mar shall and Neale also note that the flood loss expo sure for which no pre mium wascol lected and no reserve estab lished could have led to the insol vency of some com pa -nies. As claim pay ments for insol vent com pa nies are paid through a State Guar an teeFund financed through assess ments against insur ance com pa nies, a fur ther poten tialneg a tive impact would be the cre ation of a dom ino effect of com pany insol ven cies(Mar shall and Neale, 2006).

Tow ers Perrin (2005) describes three fur ther prob lems for insur ers, other thanthe direct costs, that can emerge from claims expan sion. First, share hold ers may suethe insurer for pay ment of non-cov ered claims. Sec ond, pol i cy hold ers (such as thosewho, in this case, incurred the extra expense of flood insur ance) may launch law suitsagainst insur ers for fail ing to appro pri ately and con sis tently apply pol icy lan guage forall cus tom ers. Third, pre ce dents are devel oped that will affect future events.

Reg u la tory pres sure on insur ers to set tle dis puted claims likely added to the costof insur ance and lim i ta tions in avail abil ity fol low ing Hur ri cane Katrina. Higher costs



and lim ited avail abil ity com monly occur after a major disas ter for a num ber of rea -sons, includ ing higher rein sur ance2 costs and antic i pa tion of expo sure to future losses(McCarty, 2006).

The expe ri ence after Hur ri cane Katrina was no excep tion. In Mis sis sippi’s case,in addi tion to rate increases, insur ers also shifted towards the use of per cent agesrather than flat deduct ibles. Mis sis sippi insur ers intro duced storm per cent age deduct -ibles of two to five per cent (Mar shall and Neale, 2006). Mis sis sippi’s resid ual mar ket(mar ket of last resort) also sheds light on the state’s insur ance affordability and avail -abil ity chal lenges. Mis sis sippi has a wind pool (a facil ity owned by indi vid ual insur ance com pa nies) that serves as the mar ket of last resort for coastal prop erty insur ance; thepool applied for rate increases in April 2006 for dwell ings and com mer cial prop erty of397.8 per cent and 268.3 per cent. Mar shall and Neale also found sub stan tial increasesin the pool’s busi ness vol ume, an indi ca tor of avail abil ity chal lenges (Mar shall andNeale, 2006).

Rate increases and avail abil ity chal lenges occurred in other affected coastalregions, beyond those affected by Katrina. For instance, despite not hav ing had a major storm since 1989, South Carolina expe ri enced prob lems in coastal areas in 2006 withinsur ance avail abil ity (McCarty, 2006). Insur ers were increas ing rates by 100 to 200per cent, decreas ing cov er age by employ ing per cent age deduct ibles, declin ing to renew exist ing pol i cy hold ers, and dis con tinu ing writ ing new busi ness in the state. Majorinsur ers also reduced cov er age in parts of New York, Con nect i cut, New Jer sey, RhodeIsland, Mary land, and Mas sa chu setts (Block, 2010).

While gov ern ments and courts exert ing reg u la tory and legal pres sure on insur -ers may result in ben e fits to those cop ing with imme di ate finan cial losses, ulti mately,insur ance con sum ers are adversely affected in both the cost and avail abil ity of insur -ance. Abra ham (2007) described the issue:

But as in any mul ti ple move game, the in sur ers have not sim ply taken their med i -cine and moved on. Rather, their next move has been to cease sell ing home own -ers in sur ance on coastal prop er ties. This de vel op ment was at least partly inpros pect re gard less of how the in sur ers were treated in the courts. Harsh le galtreat ment (or the pros pect of it), how ever, un doubt edly ex ac er bated in sur ers’ re -luc tance to con tinue writ ing cov er age on coastal prop erty.

In the field of in sur ance, le gal res cue of this sort is thus a dou ble-edged sword.The price that is paid to en sure that cur rent pol i cy hold ers have in sur ance fortheir losses may be that fu ture pol i cy hold ers find it dif fi cult or im pos si ble to ob -



2 Rein sur ance is insur ance pur chased by an insurer from other insur ers. It can help an insurer man age therisk asso ci ated with a disas ter.

tain cov er age at cur rent lev els or for cur rent pre mi ums. As a re sult, cov er age be -comes scarce and pre mi ums sky rocket. This phe nom e non oc curred in the 1980sin con nec tion with in sur ance against li a bil ity for pollution, and now it isoccurring again in the homeowners insurance market.

State Farm, the larg est insurer in Mis sis sippi when Katrina struck, scaled backfrom Mis sis sippi and made it clear that their with drawal was a direct result of theactions taken by the state’s attor ney gen eral. State Farm’s gen eral coun sel was clear:“The attor ney gen eral’s actions only fur ther high light the unpre dict able legal and busi -ness envi ron ment that led to our Feb ru ary deci sion to sus pend writ ing any new home -own ers or com mer cial prop erty busi ness within the state of Mis sis sippi” (Kern,2007a).

Fed eral and state disas ter relief

The dis tinc tion be tween wind and flood dam age likely con trib uted to the di sas ter re -lief costs in curred by both the fed eral and state gov ern ments.

The Fed eral Emer gency Man age ment Agency (FEMA) oper ates a pro gram thatpro vides hous ing assis tance after disas ters. The assis tance includes fund ing for repairand replace ment of home owner res i dences not cov ered by insur ance. In the two yearsfol low ing Katrina, FEMA pro vided US$7.6 bil lion to house holds that suf fered dam ageor lost their entire belong ings (FEMA, 2007).

Lou i si ana estab lished a pro gram fol low ing the 2005 hur ri canes, called the RoadHome, which pro vides finan cial assis tance to home own ers, small rental prop ertyown ers, and build ing pro fes sion als. Home own ers were required to have owned andoccu pied their homes as main res i dences at the times of Hur ri canes Katrina and Rita.Home own ers who were unin sured but should have car ried insur ance (i.e., those wholived in a flood plain but did not have flood insur ance) were eli gi ble for the pro grambut their assis tance was sub ject to a 30 per cent pen alty. Home own ers were eli gi ble forcom pen sa tion grants up to US$150,000 for dam age costs, less com pen sa tion receivedthrough insur ance and FEMA. Accord ing to the pro gram’s website, as of April 8, 2011, the pro gram had dis persed US$8.74 bil lion.

Given the low take-up rates of flood insur ance rel a tive to pri vate home insur -ance, it is likely that some gov ern ment finan cial assis tance went to home own ers whoexpe ri enced flood losses who had pri vate home insur ance, but not flood cov er age. The US gov ern ment flood insur ance pro gram would have expe ri enced losses had thesehomes had flood cov er age, but at least pre mi ums would have been col lected to off setsome of the losses.



Split cov er age and the insur ance ofCana dian earth quake risk

The de vel op ments that un folded post-Ka trina dem on strate how split cov er age of in -sur ance against a nat u ral di sas ter can cre ate sig nif i cant prob lems for both in sur ancecon sum ers and the in dus try. The in abil ity of pri vate in sur ers in the US to cover floodrisk and the pres ence of a US gov ern ment plan for this risk made split cov er age un -avoid able. How ever, the prob lems il lus trate why split cov er age should be cir cum -vented where pos si ble. In Can ada’s case, al though cov er age for earth quake risk doesnot need to be split as pri vate in sur ers are pre pared to of fer com pre hen sive cov er age,pro vin cial in sur ance leg is la tion has re sulted in this hap pen ing.

Pro vin cial insur ance acts in com mon law prov inces have his tor i cally made a dis -tinc tion between dam age caused by fire and dam age caused by other per ils. For a home or com mer cial prop erty and casu alty insur ance pol icy, a sec tion of the pro vin cialinsur ance act referred to as “the fire part” would apply to fire dam age while anothersec tion of the act (“the gen eral part”) would cover other dam age. A BC con sul ta tionpaper on that prov ince’s Insur ance Act explains the his tory:

The struc ture of to day’s leg is la tion re flects the his tor i cal reg u la tion of in sur ancecon tracts, when con tracts were gen er ally is sued for spe cific types of risks or per -ils. How ever, mod ern in sur ance con tracts of ten cover a va ri ety of risks(multi-peril) or even all risks. For ex am ple, the ba sic home pol icy no lon ger in -sures con sum ers only for dam age to the home by fire, but also typ i cally cov ers 14other per ils (in clud ing ve hi cle im pact, van dal ism, wind and hail, win dow glassbreak age and theft), and may also in clude a com po nent pro tect ing the home -owner from third party liability in certain circumstances (BC, 2007).

The part of pro vin cial insur ance acts that deals with fire includes spe cific exclu -sions for risks that are con sid ered unin sur able, such as war or insur rec tion (BC, 2011).Insur ers can place other exclu sions into insur ance con tracts for fire dam age. How ever, an exclu sion is not bind ing on the insured if it is held to be unjust or unrea son able bythe courts. In other words, a judge can expand cov er age by over turn ing an exclu sionafter an event.

The insur ance indus try has a long stand ing pref er ence for offer ing com pre hen -sive earth quake cov er age (BC Min is try of Finance, 2007). In other words, both dam age caused by the ground shak ing and any fire sub se quent to an earth quake would bepack aged together. How ever, because of the his tor i cal struc ture of insur ance leg is la -



tion, the cov er age for fire fol low ing an earth quake and that for the ground shak ing isprev a lently split. Stan dard all-per ils pol i cies include cov er age for dam age from a firefol low ing an earth quake. Cov er age against dam age from the ground shak ing is avail -able, but must be pur chased through a sep a rate rider (an optional add-on to the pol -icy). Insur ers are reluc tant to exclude risks that are not set out in the Insur ance Actbecause of con cerns that a court will over turn an exclu sion and allow an insur anceclaim to suc ceed, even though the insurer has not col lected a pre mium or set asidereserves to cover the risk (BC Min is try of Finance, 2007).

While cov er age for fire fol low ing an earth quake is stan dard for home owner pol i -cies, take-up of the earth quake rider var ies across the coun try. Kovacs (2010) notesthat the Insur ance Bureau of Can ada esti mates 60 to 65 per cent of home own ers insouth-west ern Brit ish Colum bia buy earth quake insur ance. In con trast, very fewhome own ers (less than 2 per cent) else where in Can ada buy earth quake insur ance,includ ing those in Mon treal, Ottawa, and Que bec City.

The Alberta and BC Insur ance Act reviews

Main tain ing a dis tinct part of the In sur ance Act for fire ul ti mately leads to cases wherethere is am bi gu ity over which part of the Act ap plies. In 2003, the Su preme Court ofCan ada ruled in KP Pa cific Hold ings Ltd. v. Guard ian In sur ance Co. of Can ada that the lim i ta tion pe riod un der the gen eral part of the BC In sur ance Act ap plied to a fire lossclaim rather than the pe riod un der the fire part (SCC, 2003). The rul ing ef fec tivelymade the fire part of pro vin cial in sur ance acts re dun dant for multi-risk pol i cies.

Alberta and BC ini ti ated reviews of their Insur ance Acts in 2005. A key issue forthese reviews was address ing the issues raised by the Supreme Court. The reviewsprompted these prov inces to con sider whether to amend the list of exclu sions for firedam age. Alberta passed amend ments to its Insur ance Act in 2008 and BC fol lowed suit in 2009. The amend ments in both prov inces cre ated one set of pro vi sions appli ca ble to all prop erty con tracts. The changes thus elim i nated the need to clas sify the insur ancecon tract as a fire con tract or a multi-peril con tract. Both prov inces amended their actsto move exclu sions fol low ing fire from leg is la tion to reg u la tion.

Alberta has now amended its reg u la tions. Earth quake was not added to the list ofexclu sions for fire cov er age. BC has released a con sul ta tion paper which pro poses notto add fire fol low ing earthquake to the exclu sions listed in its reg u la tions. This wouldthus main tain the sta tus quo in these prov inces for split cov er age. The BC con sul ta tion paper (BC Min is try of Finance, 2010) notes the fol low ing rea sons for not add ing thisexclu sion:

4 Fire losses often entail sig nif i cant finan cial loss for indi vid u als and busi nesses, andlim its in fire cov er age may result in unex pected and unfair con se quences;



4 Con sum ers now cov ered for fire fol low ing an earth quake as part of their basic fire cov -er age would have no pro tec tion from losses aris ing from fire fol low ing earth quakesunless they pur chased addi tional coverage;

4 Con sum ers who pur chased addi tional cov er age could find their fire loss cov er age sig -nif i cantly reduced due to higher deduct ibles that apply to earth quake coverage;

4 Mod ern pre dic tive tools have made it pos si ble for the indus try to appro pri ately price,and obtain rein sur ance to cover, the risk of fire fol low ing earth quake;

4 Indus try anal y sis indi cates that it adds very lit tle to the cost of insur ance to includefire-fol low ing earth quake with the ordi nary fire cov er age in a multi-peril contract.



Earth quake after math: What we can expect

The ex pe ri ence in the US fol low ing Hur ri cane Ka trina shows that the Al berta and BCgov ern ment ap proaches to earth quake risk could have dis turb ing con se quencesshould a ma jor earth quake oc cur that leads to sig nif i cant dam ages from both fire andthe ground shak ing.

The most sig nif i cant con cern is that pay ments of claims to insur ance cus tom erswill be delayed. Where the cause of dam age is not evi dently clear, insur ance adjust erswill need time to assess whether the dam age was caused by the ground shak ing or fire.Claims may be held up in dis pute res o lu tion includ ing court cases where the insur ance cus tomer dis agrees with the opin ion of the insurer and the cause of dam age. Delays inpay ments will result in indi vid ual hard ship as peo ple will face imme di ate shel ter costs.These delays will also slow the broader eco nomic recov ery because it will take lon gerfor peo ple to receive the funds they need to rebuild their homes and busi nesses.

The same fac tors that will cause pay ment delays for insur ance cus tom ers willalso result in an esca la tion of costs for the indus try and its cus tom ers (i.e., higheradjust ment and legal costs will be passed on to con sum ers in higher pre mi ums, higherdeduct ibles, or both). Legal dis putes might put added strain on the court sys tem anddis pute res o lu tion mech a nisms such as the Gen eral Insur ance OmbudService.

There is also a risk that pol i ti cians, reg u la tors, and courts will push for claimsexpan sion, as was the case in some Amer i can states fol low ing Hur ri cane Katrina. Forexam ple, they may attempt to per suade the indus try to cover ground shak ing dam agecosts for their cus tom ers, even those who chose not to buy this cov er age and pay thepre mium for it. Claims expan sion, or even the risk of claims expan sion, ulti matelyresults in higher insur ance costs for con sum ers. It also threat ens the avail abil ity offuture cov er age, and risks the sol vency of insur ers.

As Appen dix 1 dis cusses, claims expan sion emerged fol low ing the 1906 SanFran cisco earth quake (RMS, 2006). After the earth quake, a num ber of insur ers wentbank rupt or with drew from the mar ket, walk ing away from their lia bil i ties (RMS,2006).



Con clu sions

Fol low ing a di sas ter, it is im por tant that in sur ance cus tom ers re ceive their chequesfast to both avoid un nec es sary hard ship and ex pe dite re cov ery. The sheer vol ume ofclaims and in fra struc ture dam age af ter a di sas ter can cre ate chal lenges for in sur ers inre solv ing claims ex pe di tiously and cost ef fec tively. How ever, pub lic pol i cies that min i -mize cov er age dis putes will ease the pro cess.

The les son from Hur ri cane Katrina is clear. Split ting insur ance cov er age for anat u ral disas ter should be avoided where pos si ble. There are cir cum stances where this may not be avoid able, such as where a peril, such as flood ing, is unin sur able. How ever,this is not the case for earth quake risk in Can ada. Allow ing insur ers to offer com pre -hen sive cov er age against dam age from the ground shak ing and fire fol low ing an earth -quake will ensure the avoid ance of many of the prob lems that con sum ers faced enmasse fol low ing Katrina.



Appen dix 1: The 1906 San Fran cisco earth quake and claims expan sion

The cost of the 1906 earth quake in San Fran cisco has been es ti mated at some wherebe tween US$350 mil lion and US$500 mil lion, or 1.3 to 1.8 per cent of nom i nal USGross Na tional Prod uct in 2006 (Odell and Weidenmier, 2004).

Claims expan sion fol low ing the earth quake was sig nif i cant. Most fire insur ancepol i cies included a “fallen build ing” clause (RMS, 2006). This stated that if any mate rial part of the build ing were to fall, except as a result of fire, the pol icy would imme di atelycease to cover. Some insur ers attempted to deny lia bil ity in some claims where dam age was caused from a fire that resulted from the earth quake (Odell and Weidenmier,2004). How ever, polit i cal pres sure ulti mately prompted the New York Agree mentunder which most insur ers agreed to cover all losses for fire fol low ing the earth quake,unless it was proved that the build ing was totally destroyed by the earth quake (RMS,2006). RMS (2006) notes that of an esti mated US$350 mil lion of insured lim its,US$235 mil lion was recov ered. Of the 130 com pa nies pro vid ing fire insur ance in SanFran cisco, 12 insur ers went bank rupt and six Euro pean insur ers walked away fromtheir lia bil i ties.



Ref er ences

Abra ham, Ken neth S. (2007). The Hur ri cane Ka trina In sur ance Claims. Vir giniaLaw Re view in Brief (Au gust) 93: 173-180. <http://www.virginialawreview.org/inbrief/ 2007/08/06/abraham.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Al berta, Al berta Fi nance and En ter prise (2009). We Want Your In put; Con sul ta tionson the Pro posed Reg u la tions for the Amended In sur ance Act. Gov ern ment of Al berta. <http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/insurance/2009_0615_consultation_insurance_regs.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Al berta (2011). In sur ance Act Fair Prac tices Amend ment Reg u la tion. Government of Al berta. <http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/orders/orders_in_council/2011/711/2011_327.html> as of Au gust 12, 2011.

Brit ish Co lum bia [BC] (2011). Part 5—Fire In sur ance. In sur ance Act (March). Gov -ern ment of Brit ish Co lum bia. <http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96226_05>, as of March 28, 2011.

Brit ish Co lum bia [BC], Min is try of Fi nance (2007). In sur ance Act Re view: Dis cus sion Pa per (March). Gov ern ment of Brit ish Co lum bia. <http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/fcsp/InsuranceAct_Review_DiscussionPaper.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Brit ish Co lum bia [BC], Min is try of Fi nance (2010). In sur ance Act Reg u la tions: Dis -cus sion Pa per (Feb ru ary). Gov ern ment of Brit ish Co lum bia. <http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/fcsp/insurance_regs_discussion_paper.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Block, San dra (2010). 5 years af ter Ka trina, home own ers in sur ance costs more. USATo day (Au gust 26). <http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2010-08-26-katrina26_CV_N.htm> as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Can ada, Nat u ral Re sources Can ada, Earth Sci ences Cen tre [n.d.]. Fre quently AskedQues tions About Earth quakes. Web page. Gov ern ment of Can ada.<http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/info-gen/faq-eng.php>, as of Feb. 25, 2011.

Dotto, Lydia, Luc Duchesne, Da vid Etkin, Elianna Jaffit, Paul Joe, Brenda Jones,Grace Koshida, Brigette Leblon, Er nest Opoko-Boateng, Kevin Schenk, Ing ridStefanovic, Brian Stocks (2010). Ca na di ans at Risk: Our Ex po sure to Nat u ral Haz -ards. ICLR Re search Pa per Se ries num ber 48 (Feb ru ary). In sti tute for Cat a strophicLoss Re duc tion. <http://www.iclr.org/images/Canadians_at_Risk_2010.pdf>, as ofAu gust 11, 2011.



http://www.virginialawreview.org/inbrief/2007/08/06/abraham.pdf

http://www.virginialawreview.org/inbrief/2007/08/06/abraham.pdf

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/insurance/2009_0615_consultation_insurance_regs.pdf

http://www.finance.alberta.ca/publications/insurance/2009_0615_consultation_insurance_regs.pdf

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/orders/orders_in_council/2011/711/2011_327.html

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/orders/orders_in_council/2011/711/2011_327.html

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96226_05

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96226_05

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/fcsp/InsuranceAct_Review_DiscussionPaper.pdf

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/fcsp/InsuranceAct_Review_DiscussionPaper.pdf

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/fcsp/insurance_regs_discussion_paper.pdf

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/prs/fcsp/insurance_regs_discussion_paper.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2010-08-26-katrina26_CV_N.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2010-08-26-katrina26_CV_N.htm

http://earthquakescanada.nrcan.gc.ca/info-gen/faq-eng.php

http://www.iclr.org/images/Canadians_at_Risk_2010.pdf

Fed eral Emer gency Man age ment Agency [FEMA] [n.d.]. Di sas ter As sis tance Avail -able from FEMA. Web page. United States Gov ern ment, De part ment of Home landSe cu rity. <http://www.fema.gov/assistance/process/assistance.shtm> as of April 15,2011.

Fed eral Emer gency Man age ment Agency [FEMA] (2007). Ka trina, Two Years Later:State ment by Gil Jamie son, As so ci ate Dep uty Ad min is tra tor for Gulf Coast Re cov ery(Au gust 29). United States Gov ern ment, De part ment of Home land Se cu rity.<http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=39313>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Gov ern ment Ac count abil ity Of fice (2008). Nat u ral Ca tas tro phe In sur ance: Anal y sisof a Pro posed Com bined Fed eral Flood and Wind In sur ance Pro gram. GAO-08-504(April). United States Gov ern ment Ac count abil ity Of fice.<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08504.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Kern, Brian H. (2007a). Miss. At tor ney Sues State Farm for Breach of Con tract. In -sur ance Jour nal (June 12). <http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2007/06/12/80758.htm>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Kern, Brian H. (2007b). State Farm Set tles Miss. Ka trina Law suits; Agrees to Re openOther Miss. Claims. In sur ance Jour nal (Jan u ary 24). <http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2007/01/24/76254.htm>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

King, Rawle O. (2008). Hur ri cane Ka trina: In sur ance Losses and Na tional Ca pac i ties for Fi nanc ing Di sas ter Risk (up dated Jan u ary 31). Con gres sio nal Re search Ser vice[CRS] Re port for Con gress. <http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33086_20080131.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Kovacs, Paul (2010). Re duc ing the Risk of Earth quake Dam age in Can ada: Les sonsfrom Haiti and Chile. ICLR Re search Pa per Se ries num ber 49 (No vem ber). In sti tutefor Cat a strophic Loss Re duc tion. <http://www.iclr.org/images/Reducing_earthquake_risk.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Hartwig, Rob ert P., and Clair Wilkinson (2010). Hur ri cane Ka trina: The Five YearAn ni ver sary. In sur ance In for ma tion In sti tute (July). <http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/ pdf/1007Katrina5Anniversary.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Hartwig, Rob ert P., and Clair Wilkinson (2005). The Na tional Flood In sur ance Pro -gram. In sur ance In for ma tion In sti tute (Oc to ber). <http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/pdf/FloodWhitePaper.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Hartwig, Rob ert P. (2007). In sur ers paid more than $40 billion in Hur ri cane Ka -trina-related claims; majority settled without dispute. Press Re lease (Feb ru ary 28).



http://www.fema.gov/assistance/process/assistance.shtm

http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=39313

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08504.pdf

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2007/06/12/80758.htm




http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33086_20080131.pdf

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33086_20080131.pdf

http://www.iclr.org/images/Reducing_earthquake_risk.pdf

http://www.iclr.org/images/Reducing_earthquake_risk.pdf

http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/pdf/1007Katrina5Anniversary.pdf

http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/pdf/1007Katrina5Anniversary.pdf

http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/pdf/FloodWhitePaper.pdf

http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/pdf/FloodWhitePaper.pdf

In sur ance In for ma tion In sti tute. <http://www.iii.org/media/updates/archive/press.768752/index.html>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

In sur ance In for ma tion In sti tute (2006). Nearly 95 percent of homeowners claimsfrom Hur ri cane Ka trina settled and tens of billions of dollars paid to affectedcommunities in Lou i si ana and Mis sis sippi, In sur ance In for ma tion In sti tute reports.Press Re lease (Au gust 22). In sur ance In for ma tion In sti tute. <http://www.iii.org/media/updates/archive/press.760032/index.html>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Lou i si ana (2007). The Road Home. Web page. US De part ment of Hous ing and Ur -ban De vel op ment. <http://www.road2la.org/>, as of April 14, 2011.

Mar shall, Thomas S., and Faith R. Neale (2006). Trou bled wa ters in Mis sis sippi: The homeowners market and the At tor ney Gen eral lawsuit. CPCU eJournal (No vem ber). <http://www.cpcusociety.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/3267/conman/CPCUeJournalNov06article.pdf>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

McCarty, Kevin R. (2006). Tes ti mony of the Na tional As so ci a tion of In sur ance Com -mis sion ers Be fore the Sub com mit tee on Cap i tal Mar kets, In sur ance and Gov ern mentSpon sored En ter prises of the House Com mit tee on Fi nan cial Ser vices Re gard ing: Sta -bi liz ing In sur ance Mar kets for Coastal Con sum ers (Sep tem ber 13). <www.naic.org/documents/testimony_0609_mccarty.pdf>, as of April 7, 2011.

Mealy’s Lit i ga tion Re port (2005). Cat a strophic Loss (Oc to ber) 1 (1).<http://www.lexisnexis.com/litigationspotlight/pdfs/CatastrophicLoss.pdf>, as ofAu gust 11, 2011.

Mis sis sippi In sur ance De part ment (2007a). Dale touts success of MID Hur ri caneKa trina efforts career highlights; mediations top 4,500 mark; re-eval u a tions net anear $110 mil lion in ad di tional claims pay ments. Press Re lease (De cem ber 28). Stateof Mis sis sippi. <http://www.mid.state.ms.us/press_releases/2007/pressrel122807b.pdf>, as of March 28, 2011.

Mis sis sippi In sur ance De part ment (2007b). Na tion wide to re-examine Ka trina slabclaims. Press Re lease (April 19). State of Mis sis sippi. <http://www.mid.state.ms.us/press_releases/2007/pressrel041907.pdf>, as of March 4, 2011.

Mis sis sippi In sur ance De part ment (2007c). Dale reaches agreement with State Farmto reopen coastal slab claims. Press Re lease (March 6). State of Mis sis sippi.<http://www.mid.state.ms.us/press_releases/2007/pressrel030607.pdf>, as of March28, 2011.



http://www.iii.org/media/updates/archive/press.768752/index.html




http://www.road2la.org/

http://www.cpcusociety.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/3267/conman/CPCUeJournalNov06article.pdf

http://www.cpcusociety.org/file_depot/0-10000000/0-10000/3267/conman/CPCUeJournalNov06article.pdf

http://www.naic.org/documents/testimony_0609_mccarty.pdf

http://www.naic.org/documents/testimony_0609_mccarty.pdf

http://www.lexisnexis.com/litigationspotlight/pdfs/CatastrophicLoss.pdf

http://www.mid.state.ms.us/press_releases/2007/pressrel122807b.pdf

http://www.mid.state.ms.us/press_releases/2007/pressrel122807b.pdf

http://www.mid.state.ms.us/press_releases/2007/pressrel041907.pdf



Mohr, Holbrook (2007). Fed eral ap peals court sides with Na tion wide in Ka trinastorm surge case. In sur ance Jour nal (Sep tem ber 24). <http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-currents/2007/09/24/84225.htm>, as of March 3, 2011.

O’Brien, John (2009). AG Hood never had au thor ity to bring Ka trina suit, judgerules. LegalNewsline.com (Jan u ary 12). <http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218465-ag-hood-never-had-authority-to-bring-katrina-suit-judge-rules>, as ofMarch 3, 2011.

Odell, Kerry A., and Marc D. Weidenmier (2004). Real shock, mon e tary after shock:the 1906 San Fran cisco earth quake and the panic of 1907. The Jour nal of Eco nomicHis tory (De cem ber) 64 (4): 1002-1027. <http://www.econ.tcu.edu/quinn/finhist/readings/1906Earthquake.pdf>, as of April 29, 2011.

Of fice of the Su per in ten dent of Fi nan cial In sti tu tions [OSFI] (1998). Earth quake Ex -po sure Sound Prac tices (May). Gov ern ment of Can ada. <http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guidelines/prudential/guidelines/b9_e.pdf>, as of Au gust11, 2011.

Risk Man age ment So lu tions [RMS] (2006). The 1906 San Fran cisco Earth quake andFire: Per spec tives on a Mod ern Super Cat. Risk Man age ment So lu tions.<http://www.rms.com/Reports/1906_SF_EQ.pdf>, as of April 28, 2011.

Rob ert Redfearn Jr. (2006). First post-Ka trina court de ci sion a vic tory for in sur ers.In sur ance Jour nal (Sep tem ber). <http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag_features/2006/09/04/152486.htm>, as of Au gust 11, 2011.

Reuters (2008). Lou i si ana Su preme Court upholds Ka trina flood exclusions. Reuters(April 8). <http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-hurricane-insurance-katrina-court-idUSN0841063520080409>, as of March 3, 2011.

Sta tis tics Can ada (2011). The Con sumer Price In dex (March). Cat a logueno.62-001-X. Gov ern ment of Can ada. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-001-x/62-001-x2011003-eng.pdf>, as of April 28, 2011.

Su preme Court of Can ada (2003). KP Pa cific Hold ings Ltd. v. Guard ian In sur anceCo. of Can ada [2003] 1 S.C.R. 433 (May). <http://csc.lexum.org/en/2003/2003scc25/ 2003scc25.pdf>, as of March 15, 2011.

Tow ers Perrin (2005). Hur ri cane Ka trina: Anal y sis of the Im pact on the In sur anceIn dus try (Oc to ber). Tow ers Perrin. <http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast/publications/reports/Hurricane_Katrina/katrina.pdf>, as of Feb ru ary 23, 2011.



http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-currents/2007/09/24/84225.htm

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag-currents/2007/09/24/84225.htm

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218465-ag-hood-never-had-authority-to-bring-katrina-suit-judge-rules

http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/218465-ag-hood-never-had-authority-to-bring-katrina-suit-judge-rules

http://www.econ.tcu.edu/quinn/finhist/readings/1906Earthquake.pdf

http://www.econ.tcu.edu/quinn/finhist/readings/1906Earthquake.pdf

http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guidelines/prudential/guidelines/b9_e.pdf

http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/app/DocRepository/1/eng/guidelines/prudential/guidelines/b9_e.pdf

http://www.rms.com/Reports/1906_SF_EQ.pdf

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag_features/2006/09/04/152486.htm

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/mag_features/2006/09/04/152486.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-hurricane-insurance-katrina-court-idUSN0841063520080409

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/09/us-hurricane-insurance-katrina-court-idUSN0841063520080409

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-001-x/62-001-x2011003-eng.pdf

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-001-x/62-001-x2011003-eng.pdf

http://csc.lexum.org/en/2003/2003scc25/2003scc25.pdf

http://csc.lexum.org/en/2003/2003scc25/2003scc25.pdf

http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast/publications/reports/Hurricane_Katrina/katrina.pdf

http://www.towersperrin.com/tillinghast/publications/reports/Hurricane_Katrina/katrina.pdf

About the author

Neil Mohindra is Di rec tor of the Fra ser In sti tute’s Cen tre for Fi nan cial Pol icy Stud ies. He has pre vi ously worked for the Fi nan cial Ser vices Com mis sion of On tario as pol icyman ager for the Joint Fo rum Sec re tar iat, Joint Fo rum of Fi nan cial Mar ket Reg u la tors,where he man aged the cross-sec toral pro jects of Ca na dian pen sion, se cu ri ties, and in -sur ance reg u la tors. He also worked for the In sur ance Bu reau of Can ada as a se nior pol -icy an a lyst and led the de vel op ment of in dus try po si tions on a num ber of is sues key tothe prop erty and ca su alty in sur ance in dus try.

Prior to the Insur ance Bureau of Can ada, he was a pol icy ana lyst on finan cial sec -tor issues at the Depart ment of Finance Can ada. Mr. Mohindra also pre vi ously worked at the Fra ser Insti tute, hav ing writ ten a num ber of papers, arti cles, and opin ion pieceson secu ri ties reg u la tion.

He holds a BA (Hon ours) in Social Sci ences (Eco nom ics) from the Uni ver sity ofOttawa and an MBA in Finance from McGill Uni ver sity.



Publishing information

Pe ri od i cally, the Fra ser In sti tute pub lishes timely and com pre hen sive stud ies of cur -rent is sues in eco nom ics and pub lic pol icy. This study is one such ex am ple be long ingto a se ries of re lated pub li ca tions.

DistributionThese pub li ca tions are avail able from <http://www.fraserinstitute.org> in Por ta bleDoc u ment For mat (PDF) and can be read with Adobe Ac ro bat® 7 or later, or withAdobe Reader® 7 or later. Adobe Reader® 9, the most re cent ver sion, is avail able free ofcharge from Adobe Sys tems Inc. and may be down loaded from: <http://get.adobe.com/reader/>. We en cour age you to in stall the most re cent ver sion.

Order ing pub li ca tionsFor in for ma tion about or der ing the Fra ser In sti tute’s printed pub li ca tions, please con -tact the pub li ca tions co or di na tor

4 e-mail: [email protected] 4 tele phone: 604.688.0221 ext. 580 or, toll free, 1.800.665.3558 ext. 5804 fax: 604.688.8539

MediaFor me dia in qui ries, please con tact our Com mu ni ca tions De part ment

4 tele phone: 604.714.45824 e-mail: [email protected]

Dis claimerThe au thor of this pub li ca tion has worked in de pend ently and opin ions ex pressed byhim are, there fore, his own, and do not nec es sar ily re flect the opin ions of the sup port -ers, trust ees, or other staff of the Fra ser In sti tute. This pub li ca tion in no way im pliesthat the Fra ser In sti tute, its trust ees, or staff are in fa vor of, or op pose the pas sage of,any bill; or that they sup port or op pose any par tic u lar po lit i cal party or can di date.

Copy rightCopy right © 2011 by the Fra ser In sti tute. All rights re served. No part of this pub li ca -tion may be re pro duced in any man ner what so ever with out writ ten per mis sion ex ceptin the case of brief pas sages quoted in crit i cal ar ti cles and re views.



http://www.fraserinstitute.org

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

http://get.adobe.com/reader/

mailto:[email protected]


ISSN1925-6450 Stud ies in Fi nan cial Pol icy (on line ver sion)

Date of issueAu gust 2011

Cita tionMohindra, Neil (2011). Pre vent ing Di sas ter af ter a Di sas ter: Les sons for Can ada fromUS Ex pe ri ence. Stud ies in Fi nan cial Pol icy. Fra ser In sti tute.

Editing and pro duc tionKristin McCahon

DesignLindsey Thomas Mar tin

Cover designBill Ray

Sup port ing the Fra ser In sti tuteTo learn how to sup port the Fra ser In sti tute, please con tact

4 Devel op ment Depart ment, The Fra ser Insti tute, Fourth Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Van cou ver, Brit ish Colum bia, Can ada V6J 3G7

4 tele phone, toll-free: 1.800.665.3558 ext. 5864 e-mail: [email protected]




About the Fraser Institute

Our vi sion is a free and pros per ous world where in di vid u als ben e fit from greaterchoice, com pet i tive mar kets, and per sonal re spon si bil ity. Our mis sion is to mea sure,study, and com mu ni cate the im pact of com pet i tive mar kets and gov ern ment in ter -ven tions on the wel fare of in di vid u als. Founded in 1974, we are an in de pend ent Ca na -dian re search and ed u ca tional or ga ni za tion. Our work is fi nanced by tax-de duct iblecon tri bu tions from thou sands of in di vid u als, or ga ni za tions, and foun da tions. In or der to pro tect its in de pend ence, the In sti tute does not ac cept grants from gov ern ment or con -tracts for re search.

Nous envisageons un monde li bre et prospère, où chaque personne bénéficie d’un plusgrand choix, de marchés concurrentiels et de responsabilités individuelles. No tre mis -sion consiste à mesurer, à étudier et à communiquer l’effet des marchés concurrentielset des in ter ven tions gouvernementales sur le bien-être des individus.

Peer review

Val i dat ing the accu racy of our researchThe Fra ser In sti tute main tains a rig or ous peer re view pro cess for its re search. New re -search, ma jor re search pro jects, and sub stan tively mod i fied re search con ducted by the Fra ser In sti tute are re viewed by a min i mum of one in ter nal ex pert and two ex ter nal ex -perts. Re view ers are ex pected to have a rec og nized ex per tise in the topic area be ing ad -dressed. When ever pos si ble, ex ter nal re view is a blind pro cess.

Com men tar ies and con fer ence papers are reviewed by inter nal experts. Updatesto pre vi ously reviewed research or new edi tions of pre vi ously reviewed research arenot reviewed unless the update includes sub stan tive or mate rial changes in the meth -od ol ogy.

The re view pro cess is over seen by the di rec tors of the In sti tute’s re search de part -ments who are re spon si ble for en sur ing all re search pub lished by the In sti tute passes through the ap pro pri ate peer re view. If a dis pute about the rec om men da tions of there view ers should arise dur ing the In sti tute’s peer re view pro cess, the In sti tute has an Ed i to rial Ad vi sory Board, a panel of schol ars from Can ada, the United States, andEu rope to whom it can turn for help in re solv ing the dis pute.



State ment of pur pose, fund ing, and inde pend ence

The Fra ser In sti tute pro vides a use ful pub lic ser vice. We re port ob jec tive in for ma tionabout the eco nomic and so cial ef fects of cur rent pub lic pol i cies, and we of fer ev i -dence-based re search and ed u ca tion about pol icy op tions that can im prove the qual ity of life.

The Insti tute is a non-profit orga ni za tion. Our activ i ties are funded by char i ta bledona tions, unre stricted grants, ticket sales and spon sor ships from events, the licens -ing of prod ucts for pub lic dis tri bu tion, and the sale of pub li ca tions.

All research is sub ject to rig or ous review by exter nal experts, and is con ductedand pub lished sep a rately from the Insti tute’s Board of Trust ees and its donors.

The opin ions expressed by staff or author(s) are those of the indi vid u als them -selves, and should not be inter preted to reflect those of the Insti tute, its Board ofTrust ees, or its donors and sup port ers.

As a healthy part of pub lic dis cus sion among fel low cit i zens who desire toimprove the lives of peo ple through better pub lic pol icy, the Insti tute wel comes evi -dence-focused scru tiny of the research we pub lish, includ ing ver i fi ca tion of datasources, rep li ca tion of ana lyt i cal meth ods, and intel li gent debate about the prac ti caleffects of pol icy rec om men da tions.



Edi to rial Advi sory Board



Pro fes sor Armen AlchianPro fes sor Terry L. Ander sonPro fes sor Rob ert BarroPro fes sor Michael BlissPro fes sor James M. Buchanan† Pro fes sor Jean-Pierre CentiPro fes sor John ChantPro fes sor Bev DahlbyPro fes sor Erwin DiewertPro fes sor Ste phen EastonPro fes sor J.C. Her bert EmeryPro fes sor Jack L. GranatsteinPro fes sor Her bert G. GrubelPro fes sor James GwartneyPro fes sor Ron ald W. Jones

Dr. Jerry Jor danPro fes sor Ross McKitrickPro fes sor Michael ParkinPro fes sor Friedrich Schnei derPro fes sor Law rence B. SmithMr. Vito Tanzi

Past mem bersPro fes sor Friedrich A. Hayek*† Pro fes sor H. G. John son*Pro fes sor F. G. Pennance*Pro fes sor George Stigler*† Pro fes sor Edwin G. West*Sir Alan Walters*

* De ceased

† No bel Lau re ate

preventing disaster after a disaster: lessons for canada ... · preventing disaster after a...

Documents