Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 1943. WAR AND EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.

Wairarapa Times-Age, 5 June 1943, Page 2

Wairarapa Times-Age SATURDAY, JUNE 5, 1943. WAR AND EARTHQUAKE INSURANCE.

CiOOD many people may fee] that the Minister of Finance

has macle out an incomplete defence of the policy of maintaining for the present the high premium of five shillings per cent under the compulsory war risk insurance scheme. On the other hand there is a good deal to be said for the view expressed by Mr Nash that when the fund (which amounted to £2,300,000 at the end of March last) was no longer required as insurance against war damage, it would be very valuable as a reserve for the relief of those who in future might suffer losses from earthquake or other major disaster.

Apart from any possibility of major disaster, the whole question of earthquake insurance ought to be placed as speedily as possible upon a very much more satisfactory footing than it occupies today. It is interesting to have the expressed opinion of the Finance Minister that provision could be made, at a considerably reduced rate, for earthquake insurance which -would be available to everybody.

Comprehensive insurance at reasonable rates against earthquake damage to both large and small buildings certainly is required and there is no obvious reason why it should not be provided. The risk, particularly in the case of the large buildings in which it is greatest, could be reduced very considerably under a regulated and enforced improvement of building standards and this improvement decidedly should go hand in hand -with a comprehensive organisation of earthquake insurance.

In the case of earthquake insurance now available, not only are the rates very high, but the refusal of cover for the first £5O worth of damage makes the insurance almost worthless to owners of dwellings and some other small buildings. Recent experience in this district has shown that the only structural damage done even by fairly severe earthquake shocks to a very large proportion of dwellings in the affected area is damage to chimneys. Very often, too, only the upper parts of chimneys are damaged. The position thus is that so far as a large proportion of home-owners are concerned, no insurance at all is available against the only damage their buildings are likely to suffer.

Of two questions that need going into methodically in this connection, one relates to the design and construction of cottage chimneys. Scientific and technical knowledge should be brought to bear upon devising the type of chimney that will best resist earthquake damage and may most economically be repaired if it is damaged. It should be possible, for instance, to lighten greatly the upper parts of chimneys, from a few feet above the fireplace opening, and to provide standardised sections with which these parts could be repaired easily and speedily if they were damaged.

The other question concerns the relationship, at times, of earthquake to fire damage. It is a matter of common sense to insure against fire damage or loss and it will be only prudent to insure also against earthquake damage when insurance is available on reasonable terms. Cover is needed, amongst other things, against fire loss caused by earthquake damage. It is a question whether the protection that is needed can be given, particularly where dwellings are concerned, otherwise than under a single, comprehensive policy, covering both earthquake and fire damage, irrespective of whether a fire is or is not caused by an earthquake.