Homeowners and insurers fight back against earthquake contribution
Published: Friday, Mar 22nd 2024, 16:10
Updated At: Friday, Mar 22nd 2024, 15:10
Back to Live Feed
Arbitrary and unjust or innovative and social: the arguments for and against a contribution from building owners to finance damage after a severe earthquake are diametrically opposed.
The Federal Council would like all homeowners to have to contribute to damage coverage after a severe earthquake. The constitutional amendment envisages that the federal government could levy up to 0.7 percent of the building insurance sum. That would currently be around 22 billion francs. The consultation period ended on Friday.
The proposal was completely rejected by the SVP, the GLP, the Homeowners Association (HEV) and the Swiss Insurance Association (SVV). And for similar reasons: The model is a bottomless pit, writes the SVP in its statement. This is because the introduction of state-imposed joint liability "would open the door to analogous regulations" for other risks such as pandemics or flooding.
"Arbitrary" and "unjust"
Anyone who wanted to cover the risks could already do so on a voluntary basis. In addition, the special obligation is arbitrary, as it only affects building owners. The entry of a public-law land charge in the land register would also have an impact on the criteria for granting mortgages for financing.
Furthermore, the Homeowners Association (HEV) considers the provision to be "unfair" because owners with an insured sum of over CHF 25 million are not obliged to pay, even though they are at particularly high risk. The Swiss Insurance Association (SIA) also argues that an additional state levy would only exacerbate the economic situation in the event of a catastrophe.
For its part, the GLP complains that the contingent obligation removes the owners and cantons from their duty and thus reduces personal responsibility. It is up to the cantons to "introduce a targeted solution" and the owners themselves are responsible for making their buildings earthquake-proof.
The Swiss Farmers' Association fears that urban centers in particular would benefit in the event of major damage. And the Swiss Real Estate Association (SVIT) is particularly critical of the fact that the federal government would be given the authority to issue building regulations in connection with earthquakes.
"Innovative solution"
A majority of the cantons, the building insurers, the center, the Greens and the mountain regions see it quite differently: They describe the Federal Council's proposal as solidary and favorable.
The introduction of contingency insurance represents "an innovative solution" that covers over 99.5 percent of buildings, writes the Intergovernmental Conference on Military, Civil Defense and Fire Services (RK MZF). This would allow the public sector to concentrate on caring for those affected and restoring the infrastructure after a severe earthquake.
The Association of Cantonal Building Insurers (VKG) also believes that the Federal Council's solution offers "good protection that also works without insurance premiums". Thanks to the nationwide solidarity among building owners, the contingent liability is also considerably cheaper than a classic insurance solution.
The center also welcomes this financing approach. This would mean that premiums would not have to be paid for decades without a loss event occurring. For the Greens, it makes sense in principle that the financing of damage should be the collective responsibility of building owners. And an amount of 0.7 percent of the building insurance sum is also socially acceptable.
Finally, the Working Group for Mountain Regions (SAB) would have liked to go even further. However, as mandatory earthquake insurance is not capable of winning a majority in parliament, the current proposal for a solidarity-based system following the occurrence of earthquake damage represents "an important step".
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic