Core Insights - The article discusses the significant flood protection gap in the EU, highlighting that to achieve a uniform flood insurance penetration rate of 75%, total premiums must at least double, with current uninsured flood losses estimated at €27 billion annually. Increasing insurance penetration could reduce these losses by up to 50% [2][7][8] - It also addresses the financial vulnerability of low-income households in the U.S. regarding vehicle flood damages, revealing that FEMA provided over $160 million in assistance from 2007 to 2022, with a significant portion of recipients being low-income renters [9][11] - The potential for public-private partnership (PPP) models in pandemic insurance is explored, suggesting that intertemporal risk-sharing and capital accumulation could enhance resilience against future pandemics [12][13] - The impact of risk aversion on insurance premium rigidity is analyzed, indicating that risk-averse companies may maintain current premium rates despite changes in risk, contrasting with risk-neutral companies that would adjust rates [5][6][14] Summary by Sections Flood Protection Gap - The EU needs to double its total insurance premiums to reach a 75% flood insurance penetration rate, with current average annual uninsured losses at €27 billion. Increasing penetration could lead to a potential loss reduction of up to 50% [2][7][8] Household Disaster Assistance - From 2007 to 2022, FEMA awarded over $160 million to applicants for uninsured vehicle flood damages, with more than half of the applicants being renters and nearly two-thirds earning $30,000 or less annually. The median award represented about 33% of the median annual household income [9][11] Pandemic Insurance - The article examines the feasibility of pandemic insurance in Switzerland, emphasizing the need for a PPP model that incorporates risk-sharing and capital accumulation to mitigate revenue losses faced by firms during pandemics [12][13] Risk Aversion and Premium Rigidity - A risk-averse insurance company may choose not to change premium rates despite having information on client demand, while a risk-neutral company would adjust rates accordingly. The degree of risk aversion significantly affects the size of premium adjustments [5][6][14]