“Payday after the quake?” – Switzerland struggles for new earthquake insurance

Despite thousands of earthquakes and billions in risks, only one in five households is insured. Switzerland is now faced with a momentous decision. Should a new “contingency obligation” make all homeowners liable in future – but only after the earthquake? Last week’s Helvetia Forum 2025 showed a heated debate between freedom, responsibility and provision.

In 2024, the Swiss Seismological Service registered over 2,300 earthquakes: a record since measurements began. The fact that Switzerland is an earthquake country comes as a surprise to some. However, the historic quake in Basel in 1356 or seismic activity with a magnitude of 3.6 or 3.5, such as the geothermal project in St. Gallen in 2013 and the deep heat mining project in Basel in 2006, are the latest examples of this: The danger is real, and it doesn’t just affect faraway countries.

“Earthquakes are not an abstract threat – they are part of our reality,” warned Helvetia Switzerland CEO Martin Jara at the Helvetia Forum 2025. And yet only around 22% of buildings in Switzerland are insured against earthquake damage.

“Earthquakes are a constant reminder of how fragile our world is.” Martin Jara.

Contingent liability instead of compulsory insurance

In view of this gap, the Federal Council is proposing a new solution: In the event of damage – i.e. after a severe earthquake – all building owners should pay a one-off levy. The amount is based on the insured value and amounts to a maximum of 0.7 percent. This will be secured by an entry in the land register.

“This is not traditional insurance, but an innovative approach that focuses on solidarity in the event of an emergency,” said LDP National Councillor Patricia von Falkenstein, a supporter. The idea: no premiums in advance, but fair cost sharing after the quake.

“If no one is insured, the taxpayer always pays in the end.” Patricia von Falkenstein.

Critics, on the other hand, speak of a “state-imposed compulsory levy” and see the model as difficult to enforce – especially in the event of a real disaster. The director of the Swiss Homeowners Association, Makus Meier, warned: “A bill after the quake – that’s not insurance cover, it’s crisis amplification.”

Responsibility – private, state or communal?

The debate at the forum was emotional, controversial – and fundamental. It’s not just about numbers, but about principles: How much personal responsibility can be demanded, how much state protection is justified?

“The risk is certainly insurable – but we don’t see any obligation for the state to intervene here,” said Urs Arbter from the Swiss Insurance Association (SIA). Penetration is increasing anyway, from 6.7 percent ten years ago to 22.1 percent today. He warned: “If the state takes over, the market will lose momentum.”

“It’s not insurance, it’s a bill from the state – at the worst possible moment.” Urs Arbter

But others see precisely this as the problem: the voluntary insurance obligation has not proved its worth. “If 80 percent are not insured, the state has to help anyway. So why not regulate it systematically?” asked one participant from the audience.

Basel, Bern and the risk in the ground

The risk is particularly high in northwestern Switzerland. Another quake like the one in 1356 could cause damage amounting to CHF 45 billion, plus infrastructural and indirect damage. For many, it is clear that Switzerland is not crisis-proof without comprehensive precautions.

“Such an earthquake would not only cost us buildings, but entire livelihoods,” warned Michael Wieser (Director of the Association of Cantonal Building Insurers VKG). “What use is personal responsibility if our livelihoods are destroyed?”

“We have to decide: Personal responsibility or irresponsibility?” Participant from the audience.

Between innovation and illusion

The political discussion is now becoming concrete: a constitutional amendment is necessary and a referendum is likely. The question will be whether the population will support a contingent commitment or whether everything will remain the same in the end.

One participant put it in a nutshell: “The only thing that is certain about earthquakes is that they will come. The only question is whether we will be prepared – or whether we will be surprised.”

Binci Heeb

Read also: SIA annual media conference: Over 90 percent of the population underestimated the earthquake