Earthquakes, floods, landslides. In Italy the risk of being hit by a natural catastrophe is higher than in the rest of Europe, yet hardly anyone takes out insurance to protect themselves. According to a recent analysis published by the Insurance Supervisory Institute (IVASS), in our country are covered by policies against disasters just 836 homes, 2,4% of the total. Of these, 270 are insured only against earthquake risk and 260 only against floods, while multi-risk contracts, which protect against both dangers, are just over 300. Moreover, the diffusion of these insurances is not correlated to the level of risk in the various areas of the country: the majority of protected homes are found in the North-West, followed by the North-East and Centre, while in the South and on the islands this type of protection is a rarity.
The danger, on the other hand, is distributed much more evenly. Italian municipalities exposed to medium-high seismic risk there are 5.157 and together they make up 36,9 million people, i.e. more than half of the Italian population. As for instead floods, Municipalities at medium-high risk they are much less (237), but overall they still come close to three million residents. Since 1950, more than 5 victims of earthquakes and about 1.200 dead or missing due to floods have been estimated in Italy.
So why are Italians so reluctant to take out insurance? Our country stands out on the international scene for the management of damage from natural disasters entrusted almost exclusively to state intervention during the reconstruction phase. This is associated with the reduced propensity of Italian households to purchase non-compulsory damage coverage.
According to IVASS, it is necessary increase public-private cooperation in this area, for example by entrusting the State with emergency management and interventions on infrastructures and insurance companies with funding to restore private construction. The Institute notes that an extension of insurance protection against natural risks it would be in the interest of the Treasury, given that the state budget is continually exposed to the risk of unforeseen expenditure for relief interventions. A contribution could also come from banks, which already offer insurance coverage against natural disasters on mortgaged homes.
Furthermore – underlines IVASS – one could imagine a scenario in which the State offers genuine insurance or reinsurance services through publicly-owned companies. As for the prices, to avoid territorial disparities, the solidarity mechanism, according to which the prizes of the areas most at risk would also be financed by those of the safest areas. Without forgetting the cost containment action that can be achieved through the tax lever, which could act directly, with relief on the insurance premium paid, or indirectly, with concessions on the safety of buildings.
IVASS goes so far as to hypothesize an intervention by the legislator that pays off Natural hazards insurance coverage is mandatory. However, a similar provision – even if allowed by European laws – would certainly be perceived by the majority of people as an intolerable tax burden. And, in all likelihood, a deduction system would not be enough to avoid protests.
