Insurance and Reinsurance Models for Earthquake

Goda, Katsuichiro; Wenzel, Friedemann; Daniell, James

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36197-5_261-1

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A typical insurance strategy involves the definition of two quantities, namely the deductible (D) and the limit (L), denoting respectively the minimum and maximum losses covered by insurance in the case of an incident/hazardous event (Goda et al 2014). Assuming that all the losses between D and L are covered by the insurer (i.e.…”

Section: Insurance Strategies For Seismic Loss Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assuming that all the losses between D and L are covered by the insurer (i.e. there is no coinsurance), the total amount covered (claim) is obtained as (Goda et al 2014):…”

Section: Insurance Strategies For Seismic Loss Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a typical insurance scheme, D = 10% and L = 50% of the insured value (Yoshikawa and Goda 2014), though different schemes can be defined. A review of the existing insurance systems applied in various countries by Goda et al (2014) shows that deductible values between 1 and 15% are usual. Other techniques to define the deductible and limit points can be found in the literature, for example based on the return period (Pakdel-Lahiji et al 2015).…”

Section: Insurance Strategies For Seismic Loss Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Motamed et al (2019) estimated EAL for residential buildings in Iran between 0.12 and 0.5% of the replacement cost. The review of the international insurance systems of Goda et al (2014) showed that the premium rates can vary from 0.018% to 0.9% of the construction cost, while Yucemen (2013) gave values of 0.525% for California, 0.43% for Japan and 0.727% for Mexico.…”

Section: Application Of the Insurance Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two mechanisms are usually employed to manage the implications of earthquakes: mitigation and transfer (Goda et al 2014). The first mechanism aims to reduce the risk levels a structure or facility is exposed to and thus mitigate the losses, in addition to increasing the safety levels.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Seismic risk management through insurance and its sensitivity to uncertainty in the hazard model

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledging the devastating consequences of past earthquakes, current research efforts focus on the development of tools for assessing and controlling the risk and losses associated with future earthquakes, in addition to trying to minimize construction costs. Apart from providing a control of these levels, earthquake engineering can also provide solutions to manage the financial implications of the expected hazardous events. The first part of this article focuses on the management of the expected losses through the mechanism of transfer of the financial risk via earthquake insurance. Various insurance models are explained and applied in different case studies, and numerous analyses are performed across Europe, for a benchmark four-storey reinforced-concrete frame building. The results highlight significant variation in the premiums with seismicity, design practices and properties of the insurance model. It is crucial that any mitigation or transfer framework should use probabilistic methods to consider the uncertainties inherent in the hazard and structural response estimates. For example, different studies for the same region often indicate considerable differences in seismic hazard estimates. The uncertainty inherent in the hazard input model is transferred to and affects the results of the structural design and the performance assessment. Thus, the second part of the article investigates the impact of the epistemic uncertainty in the hazard model on the structural design and consequently the estimated future losses and risk levels, again for the benchmark building. First, a comparison is performed between the hazard data from two studies for different locations in Italy, in order to assess the possible range of variation in estimated hazard levels amongst different studies. The effects of these hazard variations on the seismic design and risk and loss metrics for the benchmark building are also investigated for these locations. Finally, a simplified approach for modelling hazard uncertainty is introduced and various sensitivity analyses are performed to investigate the effects of the hazard uncertainty across Europe. It is shown that hazard uncertainty can be of differing importance for the various involved stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Insurance Strategies For Seismic Loss Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assuming that all the losses between D and L are covered by the insurer (i.e. there is no coinsurance), the total amount covered (claim) is obtained as (Goda et al 2014):…”

Section: Insurance Strategies For Seismic Loss Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Insurance Strategies For Seismic Loss Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Application Of the Insurance Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seismic risk management through insurance and its sensitivity to uncertainty in the hazard model

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Tsunami insurance portfolio optimization for coastal residential buildings under non-stationary sea level rise effects based on sample average approximation

Alhamid,

Akiyama,

Koshimura

et al. 2023

Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seismic risk and loss estimation for the building stock in Isfahan: part II—hazard analysis and risk assessment

Kohrangi

Bazzurro

Vamvatsikos

2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The second part of a seismic risk assessment study for the Iranian city of Isfahan is presented, focusing on the description of the hazard, the risk analysis, and the discussion of the results. This study utilizes the building exposure model, the fragility and the vulnerability curves illustrated in the companion paper. The earthquake occurrence source model adopted is based on the EMME14 hazard study. The site effects accounting for the soil nonlinear behavior are modeled by means of a Vs30 map derived from the topographical slope. The validity of this map is tested based on the local surface geology and geotechnical reports. The probabilistic seismic hazard maps for different return periods that account for site effects are generated and compared with the design spectra mandated by the Iranian national seismic design code. In addition, direct seismic monetary and human losses are estimated for two earthquake scenarios and also for 100-and 475-year return periods. We show loss maps and loss curves, offering insights on the most vulnerable building classes and the spatial distribution of the estimated losses. The results provide a basis for pre-and post-disaster emergency planning, for global and local urban planning, as well as for conceiving adequate risk mitigation strategies including devising fair earthquake insurance policies. This study may also serve as a blueprint for carrying out similar work in other urban areas of the Middle East.

show abstract

Insurance and Reinsurance Models for Earthquake

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Seismic risk management through insurance and its sensitivity to uncertainty in the hazard model

Seismic risk management through insurance and its sensitivity to uncertainty in the hazard model

Tsunami insurance portfolio optimization for coastal residential buildings under non-stationary sea level rise effects based on sample average approximation

Seismic risk and loss estimation for the building stock in Isfahan: part II—hazard analysis and risk assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About