Meanwhile, the tragic event provides British Columbians with a reminder that the clock is ticking for a megathrust quake along a large stretch of the Pacific coast, from Alaska to California. It is expected to be in the range of magnitude 9.0. The last big one was in 1700. We believe our building codes, infrastructure, and every aspect of preparedness could use more attention and resources.
A report titled “The 2010–2011 New Zealand earthquake sequence,” published by reinsurance company Munich Re in February 2015, provides a powerful summary of the aftermath of the quakes in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2010 and 2011. This is worth reading and considering the level of preparedness in Vancouver and the rest of British Columbia.
Greater Vancouver has more towers than Portland and Seattle combined. In contrast to Japan, which uses steel girders, construction in B.C. uses reinforced concrete — and failure could result in towers collapsing like a pancake. Have B.C. designs ever been tested in a megathrust quake? Meanwhile, the Provincial government is now preparing to move St. Paul’s Hospital to the silty soils of what was formerly a swamp on the False Creek Flats. The Metro Vancouver region is preparing for another million people in the next thirty years. Everyone needs to step back and take a fresh look at how our region is developing in this megathrust zone. Every industry should look at its level of preparedness, and ability to respond to a disaster. Do we need an earthquake commission in the insurance industry, for example?
The 2010–2011 New Zealand earthquake sequence
(Munich RE, 10-Feb-2015)
The Darfield, or Canterbury, earthquake of 4 September 2010 measured 7.1 on the moment magnitude scale (MW). It was centred 40km east of the city of Christchurch at a depth of 10km. Although the quake caused no direct fatalities, it resulted in considerable insured damage in the local rural area and in the city (currently estimated at NZ$ 10bn). The event was followed by a prolonged sequence of smaller aftershocks.
The response, including assessment activities, was hampered by resource constraints, but by mid-February 2011 modest progress had been made toward commencement of reconstruction. The mood was positive and, with the exception of a small number of property owners with significantly damaged assets, attention was focused on getting back to normal. There were residential areas with liquefaction issues and some (predominantly older) buildings with heavy structural damage. In general, this was an event from which the city could recover in a well planned and measured manner, with insurance ready and able to handle claims in a routine and uncomplicated manner. The Lyttelton earthquake of 22 February changed all that.
At 6.3 on the MW, the Lyttelton earthquake was weaker than the Darfield event, but was centred only 10km from the centre of the city and at a depth of only 5km. This close proximity to the city along with the underlying geology led to far greater insured damage (currently estimated at NZ$ 21.5bn) as well as 185 fatalities. Much wider residential areas of the city were significantly affected by liquefaction and shaking damage. In the Christchurch central business district (CBD), buildings of all ages suffered, predominantly from shaking, but also some liquefaction. Important areas of the city were determined uninhabitable and the CBD was subject to a lockout on safety grounds that was not fully lifted until mid-2013. Despite the lockout, a small number of buildings have remained occupied, their owners resisting settlement offers.
As many as 8,000 homes were in areas of such severe liquefaction damage that authorities decided to demolish or relocate the houses, as infrastructural services could no longer be economically provided. This was typically because the land could no longer support dwelling and the low lying areas had sunk to the extent that sewage and other drainage systems relying on gravity would be ineffectual. Ultimately, 1,084 buildings of all ages in the CBD were demolished, as they presented ongoing safety issues and could not be cost-effectively repaired.
One feature of the New Zealand market is its very high level of insurance penetration, estimated by some in excess of 80%. By any measure, per capita personal/residential and commercial insurance is exceptionally widespread. Accordingly, individual expectations placed on insurance payouts were particularly high, as was the resistance to claims settlements that offered less than policyholders’ perceived or real entitlement. It would be fair to say that the event highlighted an alarming gap between what was covered and what was thought to be covered – for insurers as well as insureds.
The fatalities and damage resulted in a deep questioning of prevailing engineering practices. Not surprisingly, an attitude that strongly favoured conservative approaches to rebuilding and reconstruction ensued. The desire to produce a resilient environment that would not repeat the structural deficiencies of the past – unrecognised at the time of design/construction – was widespread.
A unique feature of the New Zealand insurance market is the government-established Earthquake Commission (EQC). Since it was set up in the 1940s, the EQC had undergone a number of reforms. By 2010, it provided cover up to a cap of NZ$ 100,000 for residential property damage as well as the first NZ$ 20,000 for damage to contents. At the time these amounts were set in the 1990s, they represented realistic average replacement costs, but had not been inflation-adjusted for many years. In addition, the EQC provided cover for land damage under the dwelling and in a prescribed area around it. The outcome was a reinstating first-loss insurance cover with an additional land cover element, in a region with a significant number of properties built on either sedimentary land or on relatively steep hill terrain that would ultimately be hit by a sequence of damaging earthquakes.
To complicate this situation even further, the legislation required that payment be made to the homeowner rather than to the insurer of the damage that occurred above the loss cap. The first-loss nature of this cover meant that for dwellings with significant damage – there were thousands – EQC assessors had to differentiate between damage from each earthquake and, additionally, insurance company assessors had to undertake a similar exercise when the damage exceeded the underlying EQC cover. The resulting workload for the EQC required it to gear up from around 20 staff members to close to 2,000.
Over the many years without a significant earthquake prior to 2010, the wider property insurance market had developed an overwhelming focus on fire damage – effectively a single-risk coverage focus. As a result of this and the converging factors mentioned above, this multi-event, wide-area damage situation revealed many unanticipated and problematic situations for underwriters. The most challenging cover elements include the following:
- Replacement cover for domestic property
- This universally provided cover meant that there was no sum insured. For a single house fire, “replacement” might be somewhat difficult due to any inaccuracies in the valuation basis, but in general the desired outcome would be easily achievable. With thousands of homes involved, not only did any inaccuracies compound into the catastrophe reinsurance, but they also led to extreme difficulty in establishing an upper estimate for total claim damage.
- Reinstatement cover for underinsured buildings
- Again, for a single fire loss this is a relatively simple loss assessment. With a large number of buildings involved, underinsurance prevalent and cover reinstated after each damaging event, the outcome is the potential provision of multiples of the sum insured up to the replacement value of the building.
- Repair to the required legal standard on the date of commencement of repair
- For a fire this might occasionally mean additional building services or disabled access. With the damage resulting from the earthquake sequence calling for a reassessment of required seismic strengthening, the accumulation of additional costs into the catastrophe programme is significant (on top of the additional service/access costs for a single loss).
- Constructive total loss
- In the event of a very significant fire loss, the viability of rebuilding what is left can be questionable, making this clause useful. Wide-area damage brings many other considerations into play, such as people’s reluctance to work in multi-storey buildings or in an area that has lost its attraction. The question is then not only whether rebuilding is feasible, but also whether it is desirable.
- Coverage provided to a standard of “substantially the same as new”
- This wording and others like it have proven problematic, as they can mean very different things to insurers, insureds and lawyers.
- Buildings with shared structural features and land ownership
Cross-leasing was common, with each owner insuring his or her own asset, requiring unanimous agreement on repair among the affected parties. In the worst of outcomes, this meant that residential properties with individual EQC entitlement affected by multiple events had several owners insured by different carriers (and some not insured). The complexities are enormous.
Today, the majority of claims arising from this unprecedented series of events have been settled (>90% of commercial; <70% of residential). Yet it must also be noted that New Zealand’s insurance industry and insureds continue to struggle with the complexities listed above more than four years after the initial earthquake. At least one primary insurer has withdrawn from the country. Currently, insurers are projecting the completion of their residential programmes by 2017. To learn from the 2010–2011 New Zealand earthquake sequence and help avoid this unsatisfactory set of circumstances in future, all stakeholders are called on to cooperate for greater transparency, unambiguous wordings and adequate covers.
Closing comment by CityHallWatch: We will write the insurance industry in B.C. to find out the situation here compared to New Zealand, in relation to the issues listed above. Stay tuned for a report in the future. We plan to start with the Insurance Brokers Association of B.C., which has the most direct contact with the public.
Others that might chime in to tell the public where we are at include the Urban Development Institute, major developers in the region, provincial authorities responsible for seismic standards and oversight, municipal officials responsible for building standards and codes, and academics. How do B.C. seismic building standards compare to the best in the world? Show us academic peer-reviewed comparisons. Last time we checked, just a couple years ago, B.C.’s top expert told us that none existed yet.