[BunnySlippers]

As a [Los Angeles] California native and multiple homeowner, I can say that earthquake insurance is prohibitively priced. To the point that it is very rare indeed to find any structure that has it.

[KC Burke]

BunnySlip.

While that may be entirely true in California, I have had an earthquake rider in Missouri on two properties (one within 120 mi of New Madrid) and in Arizona and the rider is not prohibitive.

[erlayman]

Building in flood prone areas is just asking for trouble. The dangers of flooding mostly involve people living in dangerous places.

[Not A Snowbird]

I can say that earthquake insurance is prohibitively priced. To the point that it is very rare indeed to find any structure that has it.

Interesting. I had it in Washington State, and the price was minimal.

[snarkpup]

As a [Los Angeles] California native and multiple homeowner, I can say that earthquake insurance is prohibitively priced. To the point that it is very rare indeed to find any structure that has it.

About ten years ago shen I lived in Sonoma County (CA), home to the Rodgers Creek Fault, earthquake insurance was a bargain, probably because either 1) it was subsidized, 2) it wouldn't have really paid off or 3) both of the above.

[SkyPilot]

Good info. I heard only 10 - 20% in CA have earthquake insurance. But if there was a major quake, it would destroy vehicles, household goods, property, etc. The US has not seen a major quake in quite some time.