Insured under ruins

On August 7, 2026, Slovenia’s national agency for insurance supervision proposed mandatory earthquake damage insurance for residential units in multi-family buildings. The proposal aims to address the alarming lack of coverage, with three-quarters of households remaining uninsured against earthquake-related losses. According to the agency, this measure would directly benefit insurance companies while offering minimal additional protection to residents. The initiative follows growing concerns over seismic risks in the region. A recent article published in Dnevnik highlighted the dangers posed by potential earthquakes, noting that many buildings are not adequately protected. While the article discussed insurance policies for property damage, it did not explore who would ensure the safety of occupants in structures likely to collapse during stronger tremors. This omission has sparked debate among experts and policymakers. A separate piece in Svet24 raised similar alarms, asking readers a pointed question: “When was the last time you checked your insurance?” The article emphasized how critical such checks are, warning that failure to verify coverage could lead to costly consequences. It suggested that many individuals overlook the importance of comprehensive insurance, particularly in areas prone to natural disasters. The push for mandatory insurance comes amid rising public awareness of seismic threats. In 2023, a series of minor tremors rattled parts of Slovenia, prompting calls for better preparedness. Experts have since warned that more powerful quakes could follow, potentially causing widespread destruction. Despite these warnings, the majority of homeowners remain unprepared, relying on outdated or insufficient policies. The government has responded by forming a working group tasked with drafting the new regulations. Comprising representatives from various ministries and insurance firms, the group seeks to balance the interests of both providers and consumers. However, critics argue that the plan prioritizes financial stability for insurers over genuine risk mitigation for citizens. They point out that even with mandatory coverage, the quality and scope of protection may still fall short. Public reaction has been mixed. Some residents support the move, seeing it as a necessary step toward greater security. Others, however, fear that the policy will place an undue burden on them, especially given the current economic climate. Meanwhile, insurance companies have expressed cautious optimism, acknowledging the need for reform but emphasizing the challenges of implementing such a wide-reaching change. As discussions continue, the focus remains on ensuring that the final legislation addresses the core issue: protecting lives rather than just property. With the threat of future earthquakes looming, the debate over mandatory insurance underscores the urgent need for a more proactive approach to disaster preparedness. For now, the conversation continues, with no clear resolution in sight.