It’s a fact. The climate has changed, and the consequences are hitting us like a biblical plague: water bombs, floods, landslides. Today it is no longer a question of whether these catastrophic events will repeat themselves, but when they will. And the question that follows, as inevitable as a refrain, is always the same: who pays for the damages?
The government, with a stroke of realism that deserves recognition, has decided that companies must take action by taking out compulsory insurance policies against natural disasters by 31 December 2024. The mechanism remains more or less the same: annually pay a premium to whoever will pay us in the event of damage of various types. But only for companies. For the moment, even if the Government expects it to be introduced by the end of the legislature, there is no obligation for families to take out insurance against atmospheric events. In Europe this obligation is only foreseen in France and Spain. In Belgium, home and business insurance policies include mandatory coverage against certain natural disaster events, such as floods and storms. Turkey also adopts it, even though it is not part of the Union. In the rest of the continent there is a tendency to encourage this type of policy through state incentives and deductions. Therefore, if there is no choice for businesses, for private individuals companies are offering protection policies from atmospheric events and it is therefore up to savers to evaluate whether or not to add a new expense item to their balance sheet. Each family will have to evaluate the opportunity of an additional contract and compare the different offers in circulation. If for France we are already a step forward, for Italian families the discussion is still open. We discuss, we argue, and as often happens, the solution is slow in arriving.
As for the government, on the one hand, there are those who are pushing for an obligation also for private citizens, as suggested by the Minister of Civil Protection, Nello Musumeci, who states that the State can no longer take responsibility for all the damage caused by disasters natural. But on the other hand, there are those who cry foul, such as some parliamentarians from the League or the opposition, worried that the obligation to have a home insurance policy will turn into a disguised tax, which will end up burdening only those who already struggling to make ends meet.
And this is where the truth lies. Because both positions, ultimately, say something right. On the one hand, we cannot pretend that these events do not happen, and compulsory insurance represents a logical and necessary step. On the other hand, it is also true that not everyone can afford to pay an additional insurance premium, especially in a time of crisis like the one we are experiencing.
The solution, therefore, is a middle ground, as often happens when you have to navigate between two extremes. The obligation to take out insurance may be a good idea, but it must be accompanied by a state support network for those who do not have the resources to do so, as well as “calming” the policies (also providing fines for insurance companies that refuse, such as in fact the decree provides). Incentives, tax deductions, bonuses, limits on policies, financing for the most vulnerable families. In short, the State must do its part, as it does when it builds infrastructure to avoid landslides or flooding. Otherwise, if it becomes insurance and that’s it, in fact it is configured as a tax, or almost, in favor of insurance companies and it is certainly not a shareable or acceptable proposal.
