Quake Insurance

Although I’d be the first to admit that the property/casualty insurance industry has shot itself in the foot in the past, I believe you are nailing them with a bum rap in your March 26 editorial regarding earthquake insurance.

For the principle of insurance to work, one must be able to calculate actual losses over some finite period of time, even though those losses may vary from one premium period to another. It wasn’t too long ago that your paper ran an excellent article on the subject of the earthquake hazard in Southern California and the growing sense of frustration on the part of many that the losses from “the big one” would probably be so huge that we cannot even reasonably plan for that event.

There may be other issues you can use to pick on Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, but not this one.

DAVID R. CARPENTER

Los Angeles

*

James A. Snyder defends the insurance companies, in part (Commentary, April 3), by comparing their $11.4 billion payout to their $3.4 billion in earthquake premiums, conveniently ignoring all their interest and other income from 25 years of investments. Give us a break, Snyder!

The insurance companies have made enormous profits from earthquake insurance over the years; but now, since the rate of profit is less, they want to weasel out of supplying it to us.

DAVID SILVERMAN

Reseda