PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 03/19/2011 9:10 PM by  CatAdjusterX
Japan gets hit by 8.9 Earthquake
 20 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Goldust
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:306


--
03/11/2011 10:37 AM

    News on weather channel just stated that Japan was hit by the 5th largest ever earthquake ever in the world @ 8.9 on Richter Scale.100's of people have already died from this event. May our prayers be with them as they go thru this terrible event.

    Tsunami has been hitting Hawaii for the last 2 hours .The waves have been 2-3'. Waves are headed for California but looks to be smaller.

    JERRY TAYLOR
    0
    Goldust
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:306


    --
    03/11/2011 2:36 PM
    japan was just hit again on west side of Islands by a 6.6 quake
    JERRY TAYLOR
    0
    Goldust
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:306


    --
    03/11/2011 2:40 PM

    35 boats damaged in California. More damage happened on coastline in Hawaii thru the nite. The tsunami has continuing ongoing power.

    JERRY TAYLOR
    0
    Ray Hall
    Posts:2443


    --
    03/11/2011 4:48 PM

    Shold be many marine claims in the Pacific Coast nations

    0
    okclarryd
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:954


    --
    03/11/2011 5:51 PM

    Let's all take a moment, take a breath, and say a prayer for those affected by this tragedy.

    I don't have a clue about the insurance environment in Japan but there's going to be thousands and thousands that need some assistance.  And, that help will not arrive immediately.  It will take days, weeks and months to address this.

    We can only count our blessings that we are not there now.  Those of us that have survived tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and all kinds of disasters know what they are going through.  Those of us that have worked these same disasters know how devastating they can be.  And, we also know the frustration that comes when all we, as adjusters, can offer is money. 

    I hope that Japan is modern enough to have an insurance system in place and that it comes up to speed as soon as it can.  Let's keep these folks in our thoughts for the next few days

    Larry D Hardin
    0
    CatAdjusterX
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:964


    --
    03/13/2011 1:07 AM
    Posted By Montana Goldust on 11 Mar 2011 02:40 PM

    35 boats damaged in California. More damage happened on coastline in Hawaii thru the nite. The tsunami has continuing ongoing power.



     

    Jerry, OMG the tsunami and quake and now a nuclear meltdown, crazy.

    The wave hit our Pacific coast yesterday killing 1 and many marinas sustained millions of dollars in damage along the Pacific coast of the United States.

    It is amazing to see the magnitude of destruction coming from the video of the tsunami and quake and now an explosion and nuclear meltdown.

     

    This is so different than Haiti or Chile who were hit with large quakes recently.The damage in those countries had more to do with substandard building methods. With Japan, this damage we are seeing is from a quake that hit the most well built earthquake resistant structures in the world. Japan leads the way in earthquake construction. What this quake shows us is the awesome power of nature cannot be tempered no matter how well built a structure may be. What we are seeing in Japan is looking into the future to the death and destruction that we will see when the US is hit with a massive quake and Tsunami.

    I would imagine Crawford will have a  deployment as they have subsidiaries in the Far East. Of course Japan has very good adjusters but they are going to be overwhelmed.

    What this says to all of us is we need to prepare for this to happen to us within the continental United States and that right soon !!

     

     

    Robby Robinson. 

    "A good leader leads..... ..... but a great leader is followed !!" CatAdjusterX@gmail.com
    0
    Goldust
    Advanced Member
    Advanced Member
    Posts:306


    --
    03/13/2011 9:51 AM

    Yes I was just reading where reactor 1 and three are out of control. They're saying reactor number two wasn't affected as much. I was just sitting here thinking about where a westerly wind would blow the radioactive fallout if it escapes.
      They are evacuating people as fast as they can over there. This does not look like a good situation for any of us.
    I just pray today that there is no more loss of life in the world and God will shine his grace on all mankind. I pray that all people that don't know him drop to their knees ask for his forgiveness and open their hearts to him.
    We are in a very exciting time, something the world has never seen before.

    May the Lord's blessings be upon you this day,

    Jerry Taylor

     

     

    JERRY TAYLOR
    0
    Leland
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:741


    --
    03/13/2011 10:00 PM
    Certainly all of our thoughts and prayers are with the Japanese people.

    If I may, I'd like to pose some coverage questions. If there was a similar event in California, would there be coverage under the standard earthquake form for:

    1) ALE when the house is OK but there is no electricity due to a break in the line 3 blocks away from earthquake?
    2) water washing the house away, when the tsunami is clearly caused by an earthquake?
    3) radiation contamination to the house when the radiation is due to a nuclear plant failure caused by earthquake?
    4) fire damage to a dwelling unharmed directly by the quake, but caused by exposure to a next-door property, that started on fire due to earthquake

    Also, would any of the 4 scenarios above be covered under an HO3 policy?

    One more question:

    There is some talk that the radioactive fallout could drift over to California. If so, is there any coverage for that under either an earthquake policy or HO3?

    I will post the earthquake form language when I get some time, unless somebody can beat me to it.
    0
    RandyC
    Member
    Member
    Posts:197


    --
    03/14/2011 12:42 AM

    From BASIC EARTHQUAKE POLICY--HOMEOWNERS

    LOSSES EXCLUDED

    1.Fire or explosion.

    2. Water damage resulting from:

    a. flood, rain, surface water, waves, tsunami, tidal waves.........................
    3. Controlled or uncontrolled nuclear hazard or any act or condition incident to any nuclear hazard.

    The fire, of course, would be covered by insurance other than the Earthquake policy.

    I just got out of an earthquake class yesterday, but years ago in my first one at Vale, Gene Hensley said his earthquake policy was his gas hot water heater. It was a joke, but it helped us remember that fire is basic.

    0
    Leland
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:741


    --
    03/14/2011 3:28 AM
    OK, but if the earthquake policy does not have "anti-concurrent causation" language these exclusions might not hold up. Does the earthquake policy have "anti-concurrent causation" language?

    An HO3 covers damage from a vehicle but excludes damage from earth movement. There is also "anti-concurrent causation" language re earth movement. So if a heavy truck shakes the ground, causing the earth to move and cracks appear in the house, it is not covered even though vehicle damage is otherwise covered.

    On a DP1 form "Earth Movement" is not a named peril, and is also excluded. But the same scenario of a heavy truck IS COVERED on a DP1 because the DP1 does not have any "anti-concurrent causation" language. Because there is no "anti-concurrent causation" language on the DP1 form the damage can be paid under the peril of "Vehicle" and it is irrelevant that a non-covered peril (earth movement) is one of links in the chain of causation.

    So back to the Earthquake form: If an earthquake collapses a Nuclear plant near the insured dwelling, can the resulting damage really be successfully excluded under the nuclear exclusion? The (proximate) cause of loss is "Earthquake". If the policy excludes nuclear damage AND also has "anti-concurrent causation" language re nuclear losses than I would agree a denial would be correct. If the policy does not have anti-concurrent causation" there is more of a question.

    Another important point is whether the earthquake policy talks about "direct" damage. If the policy only covers "direct" earthquake damage to the dwelling, then intervening causes of loss such as tsunami, radiation etc. are not covered because they are "indirect" causes of loss. If the policy requires "direct physical damage" from earthquake then Tsunami damage could be denied for TWO reasons: 1) denied because it is specifically excluded 2) also denied because the property has no "direct physical damage" from earthquake. If it can be excluded for both reasons a properly written denial letter should list both reasons. This would give the insurance company two defenses to a lawsuit rather than just one.

    If I remember correctly the flood policy excludes fire but then turns right around and pays for fire if it is triggered by the flood. Maybe my memory is faulty but I think it says that.

    So here are my questions re the Earthquake form:

    1) Does it have "anti-concurrent causation" language re excluded perils?
    2) Does it require direct physical damage to the dwelling from earthquake?
    3) When it excludes fire, does it add it back in another part of the policy or is it 100% totally excluded?

    I will look the answers up unless someone else does it first.

    0
    Leland
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:741


    --
    03/14/2011 3:51 AM

    I found a California Earthquake Authority sample policy:

    http://www.earthquakeauthority.com/...1-2003.pdf

    Here's one answer:

    "Without limiting the above, even if a loss directly or indirectly is caused by, is contributed to by, results from, or is aggravated by an earthquake, we do not insure for any loss that is caused directly or indirectly by, or that in any way results from, is contributed to by, or is aggravated by, any of the following:" (the policy goes on to mention several causes of loss, including tsunami)

    That's the anti concurrent causation language right there.

    re my second question: The policy does state that it pays for "direct physical loss".

    re my third question:

    It looks like fire is always excluded, and moreover, the insured must maintain a "companion" fire policy or else the earthquake policy is void. Interesting.

    So I agree with Randy's post, fire, radiation and Tsunami are all excluded on a Calif earthquake form.

    So here's another question I have:

    If an earthquake makes a house completely collapse and then a fire burns up the debris, which policy pays? both policies?
    0
    host
    CatAdjuster.org Founder
    Posts:713


    --
    03/14/2011 12:28 PM

    BTW, in the KB we have all the CEA Forms. The KB is another area for the sharing of information and resouces.

    Here is a link to the EQ section

    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    03/17/2011 11:31 AM
    Does anyone think they will be going to Japan? Due to everything going on, what would be considered a decent day rate?
    0
    Ray Hall
    Posts:2443


    --
    03/17/2011 12:28 PM

    It,s another world away. I have no idea if Japan has "dwellings" like the West does. I think they have pleanty of insurance coverage to cover these three events; however the culture may be something like America at the turn of the century. Send in your sworn proof of loss (with proper documentation) and we will review (from another part of the world) and get back to you.  They may have thousands of native adjusters with their ladders ready and the CCC auto program loaded.

    I inspected an 18 million  flood loss at a village for a copper mine in Irian Jarawa in 1992 for an American Co. and did all the settlement in New Orleans, which took about one year.

    I think American Cat. adjusters would be kinda lost with the language, construction, metric's and software. All this is just a guess. I do know very few American Adjusters have ever been needed in Canada,

    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    03/17/2011 1:57 PM
    We need to think like International Adjusters. The world is getting smaller everyday.
    0
    ChuckDeaton
    Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1110


    --
    03/17/2011 4:10 PM
    This is an application of what seems to be logical, I doubt that earthquake insurance or radiation coverage is prevalent in Japan, especially for residential risks. Very few insurors are interested in providing coverage for catastrophes that are certain and relatively narrow in geographical scope.
    "Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    03/17/2011 5:24 PM
    Chuck from what I hear EQ & Tsunami coverage was not only availble but required. I can not think of any bank who would loan money in Japan without it. I heard on the news 100 B in claims. (Number keeps going up) If nothing is covered every bank in Japan will go under as a result of this loss.
    0
    ChuckDeaton
    Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1110


    --
    03/17/2011 7:32 PM
    Earthquake coverage must be incredibly expensive. As we see Japan sits on the "Ring of Fire" and earthquakes are a common occurrence. My understanding and that is all it is, is that most rural residences in Japan are not financed.

    From personal observation I can say that as far as my experience goes residential construction is radically different from that in the US. More post and beam with divider walls and sliding doors.
    "Prattling on and on about being an ass with experience doesn't make someone experienced. It just makes you an ass." Rod Buvens, Pilot grunt
    0
    Ray Hall
    Posts:2443


    --
    03/18/2011 12:36 PM

    It,s just a guess, but I think the worlds third largest economy would have lots if insured losses under marine , auto and "fire insurance" type contracts. Just flood alone would run into the 100 billion from the pictures. I just don,t think field inspectors will have to inspect each loss.. like we do roof claims for hail.

    II think it will be more like NFIP did the low  value buildings  in Katrina and the carriers worked the autos.

    In 1994 in Houston we has thousands of autos destroyed by flood and they were taken to several very large lots that could hold 5, 6 thousand and lined up by carriers in rows and one adjuster could inspect hundreds per day and the salvage buyers could purchase and remove hundreds each day. Very few adjusters needed. I know many of these auto,s were washed down and sent to Central and South America to rebuilders.The American title was killed in the data base.

    0
    CatAdjusterX
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:964


    --
    03/19/2011 9:05 PM
    Posted By Leland on 14 Mar 2011 03:28 AM
    OK, but if the earthquake policy does not have "anti-concurrent causation" language these exclusions might not hold up. Does the earthquake policy have "anti-concurrent causation" language?

    An HO3 covers damage from a vehicle but excludes damage from earth movement. There is also "anti-concurrent causation" language re earth movement. So if a heavy truck shakes the ground, causing the earth to move and cracks appear in the house, it is not covered even though vehicle damage is otherwise covered.

    On a DP1 form "Earth Movement" is not a named peril, and is also excluded. But the same scenario of a heavy truck IS COVERED on a DP1 because the DP1 does not have any "anti-concurrent causation" language. Because there is no "anti-concurrent causation" language on the DP1 form the damage can be paid under the peril of "Vehicle" and it is irrelevant that a non-covered peril (earth movement) is one of links in the chain of causation.

    So back to the Earthquake form: If an earthquake collapses a Nuclear plant near the insured dwelling, can the resulting damage really be successfully excluded under the nuclear exclusion? The (proximate) cause of loss is "Earthquake". If the policy excludes nuclear damage AND also has "anti-concurrent causation" language re nuclear losses than I would agree a denial would be correct. If the policy does not have anti-concurrent causation" there is more of a question.

    Another important point is whether the earthquake policy talks about "direct" damage. If the policy only covers "direct" earthquake damage to the dwelling, then intervening causes of loss such as tsunami, radiation etc. are not covered because they are "indirect" causes of loss. If the policy requires "direct physical damage" from earthquake then Tsunami damage could be denied for TWO reasons: 1) denied because it is specifically excluded 2) also denied because the property has no "direct physical damage" from earthquake. If it can be excluded for both reasons a properly written denial letter should list both reasons. This would give the insurance company two defenses to a lawsuit rather than just one.

    If I remember correctly the flood policy excludes fire but then turns right around and pays for fire if it is triggered by the flood. Maybe my memory is faulty but I think it says that.

    So here are my questions re the Earthquake form:

    1) Does it have "anti-concurrent causation" language re excluded perils?
    2) Does it require direct physical damage to the dwelling from earthquake?
    3) When it excludes fire, does it add it back in another part of the policy or is it 100% totally excluded?

    I will look the answers up unless someone else does it first.


    This basically is the old Katrina argument of wind Vs. flood but on STERIODS. Flood and earthquake damage can easily mimic the other. Boy this will be a huge CLUSTERF@#K when this hits CA, Oregon Washington or even in the Southern states that lie on a few fault lines. This CAE cert from the Ca earthquake Authority iis a ridiculously easy cert to obtain. With that being said, it will be a field day for PA's and plaintiff attorney's

     

    A's and attorn

    "A good leader leads..... ..... but a great leader is followed !!" CatAdjusterX@gmail.com
    0
    CatAdjusterX
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:964


    --
    03/19/2011 9:10 PM
    Posted By ALANJ on 17 Mar 2011 05:24 PM
    Chuck from what I hear EQ & Tsunami coverage was not only availble but required. I can not think of any bank who would loan money in Japan without it. I heard on the news 100 B in claims. (Number keeps going up) If nothing is covered every bank in Japan will go under as a result of this loss.


    CNN touched on the prevalence of EQ coverage in Japan and stated only14% to 17% of households hold EQ insurance in and around Japan and Okinawa
     

    "A good leader leads..... ..... but a great leader is followed !!" CatAdjusterX@gmail.com
    0
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    These Forums are dedicated to discussion of Claims Adjusting.

    For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines: 
    • No Advertising. 
    • No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or others to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
    • No Flaming or Trolling.
    • No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
    • Terms of Use Apply

      Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.