I’m not sure I understand how that’s a different paradigm from earthquake preparedness, like to be ready for an earthquake you have to build and maintain your structure in a certain way. That guy in your example failed the “maintain” part of that, seems like it should be treated the same.
Also no shit you shouldn’t pile flammable material next to your house in a fire zone, seems pretty intuitive. Plus all that guy needs to do to get covered again is to move the debris. Seems like a case of being intentionally obtuse to prove some individualist point, hilariously and ironically undermined since he’s seeking the collectivist protection of insurance in the first place.
Its different in that how well risky my neighbor down the block is for an earthquake does not impact my earthquake risk.
Fire is fundamentally different than flood or earthquake as a peril because what people around you do to mitigate or prepare fundamentally impacts your risk.
If my neighbor has put their house up on stilts to mitigate for flooding, this doesn’t change my flood risk. If my neighbor has managed their property in a way that reduces their fire risk, it also reduces my fire risk (and of course if they fail to do so, the opposite is true as well).
It’s kind of like how car insurance varies based on where you live, because your neighbors may have more expensive cars and they don’t want to pay for when you crash into those.
Then maybe fire preparedness isn’t something “the market” can handle, and we just need realistic enforcement of construction and maintenance rules.
I’m not sure I understand how that’s a different paradigm from earthquake preparedness, like to be ready for an earthquake you have to build and maintain your structure in a certain way. That guy in your example failed the “maintain” part of that, seems like it should be treated the same.
Also no shit you shouldn’t pile flammable material next to your house in a fire zone, seems pretty intuitive. Plus all that guy needs to do to get covered again is to move the debris. Seems like a case of being intentionally obtuse to prove some individualist point, hilariously and ironically undermined since he’s seeking the collectivist protection of insurance in the first place.
Its different in that how well risky my neighbor down the block is for an earthquake does not impact my earthquake risk.
Fire is fundamentally different than flood or earthquake as a peril because what people around you do to mitigate or prepare fundamentally impacts your risk.
If my neighbor has put their house up on stilts to mitigate for flooding, this doesn’t change my flood risk. If my neighbor has managed their property in a way that reduces their fire risk, it also reduces my fire risk (and of course if they fail to do so, the opposite is true as well).
Aha gotcha great point.
It’s kind of like how car insurance varies based on where you live, because your neighbors may have more expensive cars and they don’t want to pay for when you crash into those.
Then maybe fire preparedness isn’t something “the market” can handle, and we just need realistic enforcement of construction and maintenance rules.