Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelS
Would the ice storm in Quebec be a bigger disaster than any of the Red River floods?
|
I don't believe so, but that's why I used the weasel word "insurable". Officially it was much larger in terms of dollar value.
You never really get a good estimate of non-insurable (ie: government paid) disasters. The government usually has an interest in either inflating or deflating the cost, depending on the particular disaster, political climate, popular opinion... plus for any given situation the government has a habit of hiding expenses under other programs. Anything to help the next election, or keep a pet project going, or some other pork-type thing. As opposed to insurance companies that can tell you to the penny exactly how much money was paid out for a given storm.
Also, because so much is not "covered" by government "insurance" - a LOT of things just got thrown out after 1997 in Manitoba. Whereas in Quebec, virtually everything was insured and was therefore included in the calculations.
Lastly, insurance pays a fair replacement value, often with new goods. Flood payments from the government amount to pennies on the dollar for lots of things.
So officially, yes. But those of us who've worked risk management believe otherwise.