only 5% in Italy is really protected - Corriere.it

only 5% in Italy is really protected - Corriere.it


Owned homes, owned by 80% of households in Italy, are insured by only 50% of them and less than 5% have complete protection against natural catastrophes, earthquakes or floods, inundations, floods such as those that have scourged Romagna in the last few weeks. From the analysis by ANIA (the association that brings together insurance companies) emerges the low propensity to equip one's home with a large parachute. Out of a total of 31.2 million housing units, those guaranteed are 16.2 million, through the stipulation of 11.9 million policies. Although 75% of homes are exposed to a significant risk of natural disasters of various types, just under 5% are protected by a specific cover. There are around 1,350,000 of these policies, of which only 37% (496,000) provide for both extensions of natural catastrophe risk (earthquake plus flood), while 43% only insured earthquake risk (579,000 contracts) and 20% insured flood (275,000). Consequently, only 2.5% of the total housing in Italy (771,000 policies) covered for damages similar to those that occurred last month in Romagna.

The most covered territories and the numbers

The most widespread protection is that against fire. While those coverages of the more complex and increasingly frequent risks associated with climate change and which arise in water bombs, floods, floods, are ignored. But who insures more? From Ania's research it emerges that the most prudent families are those residing in Lombardy, where almost a quarter of the insured homes are concentrated (4 million out of a total of 16.2); followed by Piedmont, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna where on average 10% of homes are protected. As far as the Centre-South is concerned, only in Lazio (mainly thanks to Rome) and Tuscany is a concentration of around 8% reached. The distribution of homes with policies extended to the risk of natural catastrophes is more or less similar. But how much do Italians spend on insurance? Out of a total of approximately 393 billion sums insured for the home and its contents, 198 billion concern protection against earthquake risk alone, 56 are anti-flood and 140 for contracts with both catastrophic coverage. The average annual cost of a home insurance policy? equal to 167 euros for the fire guarantee to which an average of 142 euros should be added to benefit from the extension to catastrophic risks. From 2018, both the tax exemption on the sums paid (22.25%) and the deduction from the Irpef of 19% of the premiums paid are envisaged on the premium for natural catastrophe guarantees.

What the policies usually provide

We are working together with IVASS, the Ministry of the Economy and other institutes to encourage businesses and households to take out insurance against disasters. To do this we need that, at this moment, the insurance companies immediately pay the premiums that had been activated in Emilia Romagna. This was stated by the Minister of Enterprise and Made in Italy, Adolfo Urso, on the sidelines of the press conference to present the Phygital Sustainability Expo. The minister underlines the need to overcome the diffidence of businesses and households in insuring themselves against disasters. But what must insurance policies have, after the dramatic events in Romagna, to obtain compensation from natural disasters? We compared the presence of similar coverage in the solutions offered by 10 leading insurance companies. In policies for the home, the atmospheric event guarantee usually protects the building and the things contained from hurricane, storm, storm, wind and things dragged by it, water that has penetrated inside the building due to injuries or breaches in the roof. While there is no basic coverage for natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and floods. Only 5 out of 10 policies provide for it with the payment of an additional premium. Strangely enough for cars, the extension of the theft-fire section, due to natural or atmospheric events, covers, albeit with differences, the risk of inundation and inundation. Why this difference of treatment, when the terminology of the titles of the clauses is almost similar? Greater linearity of policy terms and conditions would improve the propensity to protect one's home against the consequences of climate change.



Source link