Yes, almost every area has it's own disasters to worry about, but it's a mistake to assume that the frequency and average damage for each type of disaster and each area normalizes out to a similar value.

That is obviously true, but that doesn't stop other insurance industries. A healthy 40 year old women and a 70 year old man with heart disease are going to have different prices for a $1m life insurance policy, but both policies will pay out equally regardless of when they die.

I'm not saying home insurance needs to be the same cost for everyone, but the current situation of specialized policies that vary house to house in each region is overly complex. Plus climate change is changing the risk profile for everyone and the results of which are not yet clearly understood by climate scientists let alone random homeowners.

> but the current situation of specialized policies that vary house to house in each region is overly complex

I actually think it's not complex enough. How else do you accurately price natural disasters into existing homes, whose ownership is often measured in decades? I think any area with a chance over a certain percent of a natural disaster that could cause catastrophic loss of property should require insurance, and the insurance cost should be as accurate as possible to the reality of living in that location.

http://www.cbsnews.com/media/top-10-safest-us-cities-from-na... - warning, its a slideshow

10. southeast michigan*

9. denver colorado

8. chicago illinois*

7. allentown pennsylvania* (actually east, not midwest)

6. dayton ohio*

5. bethesda maryland

4. buffalo new york

3. akron ohio*

2. cleveland ohio*

1. syracuse new york

Hmm, maybe you're thinking of the central US? also known as 'tornado alley'?

The definition of various 'areas' of the US are ill defined, but its clear, at least from my experience living in the midwest and having never experienced a single disaster in the 25 years I've been here, that the midwest is definitely the safest from natural disasters.

Are the astericks there meant to denote midwest? Allentown is further east than Syracuse, Buffalo, and Bethesda, so it isn't midwest.

It is also worth noting that almost all of the cities listed are heavily impacted by snow which it doesn't sound like it was factored in to the ranking. Dealing with large snowfalls have a huge costs although it might not be factored in to normal home insurance since there is generally minimal property damage. It might be interesting to see a cost comparison between dealing with large snowfalls and other less frequent but more damaging weather phenomena like hurricanes or tornadoes.

Finally, Ohio certainly sees less tornadoes than most of the midwest, but it still receives a lot compared to the western US. Here is a nice visual summary of recorded tornadoes [1]. This one [2] is of especial interest and shows all tornadoes that have caused $50+ million in damage which would be important when talking about insurance. Tornado alley certainly gets more tornadoes, but Ohio is right up with them in terms of damage mainly due to the comparative development of the various areas.

[1] - http://uxblog.idvsolutions.com/2012/07/interactive-tornado-t...

[2] - http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HlfovbQeMvg/UBFIgq0rAPI/AAAAAAAABP...

I think i was thinking of youngstown ohio - i updated the list

As for ohio, I count 6 tornados on there, maybe 7? (i might be reading it wrong)

since 1950?

I'd say thats pretty low risk.

How many earthquakes have we had in that time?

How many hurricanes have caused billions of damage in that time? Floods/draught/etc

> which it doesn't sound like it was factored in to the ranking.

I dont think it was, it was ranked by natural disasters - so unless its a major blizzard it probably wouldnt be measured. (oh they probably didn't include hail either, which is uncommon, but more damaging to property)

I also dont think snow is on the same level as a natural disaster from an insurance risk perspective, but it likely results in greater or at least similar fatalities overall so i think its a fair point.

I'm not arguing the midwest is immune to all danger, i'm only saying living there puts you at lower risk of being affected by a natural disaster - /and/ - that the land there isn't already owned by 'rich people' (to take us back to why i commented in the first place)

Also - i wish that tornado map was interactive, would be great to see more of the filters

That's what FEMA is and does. It's insurance of last resort for a wide variety of major disasters.