The National Council rejected the bill on 30 September 2026, after the Council of States had already decided on 16 December 2025 not to proceed with it. Consequently, the Confederation will not be granted any new constitutional powers to collect contributions from property owners following a major earthquake.<\/p>\n
Essentially, the model was aimed at providing retrospective funding for reconstruction. Once triggered by the Federal Council, owners across Switzerland would have had to pay up to 0.7 per cent of the building\u2019s insured value. The federal government justified this by pointing to the continuing inadequacy of cover for earthquake damage in Switzerland, as contractual solutions currently exist only through private insurance products.<\/p>\n
Private cover remains the only option At the same time, the federal government acknowledges that the current coverage gap remains. The Federal Office for the Environment notes that private insurance products are currently the only contractual solution for earthquake damage and that policymakers had intended to close this gap. It is precisely this attempt to close the gap via a contingent liability that has now failed for the time being.<\/p>\n Parliamentary chambers reject federal competence The fundamental question of earthquake preparedness in the existing building stock therefore remains unresolved. The FOEN points to the significant earthquake risk across virtually the entire populated area of Switzerland and to the shared responsibilities between the federal government, the cantons and other stakeholders. For property owners, therefore, the decision immediately changes the legal framework, but the risk itself does not disappear.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Bern has scrapped the Federal Council\u2019s contingent liability for earthquake damage. Following the Council of States, the National Council also declined to consider the bill during the autumn session of 2026. Earthquake protection for building owners therefore remains voluntary and organised privately.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":167795,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_surecart_dashboard_logo_width":"180px","_surecart_dashboard_show_logo":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_orders":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_invoices":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_subscriptions":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_downloads":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_billing":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_account":true,"inline_featured_image":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[55981,55963,56026,22305],"tags":[12799,62885,60029,62886,12525,12526,28162,12528],"class_list":["post-167794","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-associations","category-financing-strategies","category-planning-development","category-switzerland","tag-bundesrat-en","tag-erdbebenversicherung","tag-erdbebenvorsorge","tag-gebaudeeigentum","tag-immoinvest-en","tag-immonews-en","tag-nationalrat-en","tag-news-en"],"acf":{"bild_mit_ki_erstellt_worden":["Ja"],"lead":"Bern has scrapped the Federal Council\u2019s contingent liability for earthquake damage. Following the Council of States, the National Council also declined to consider the bill during the autumn session of 2026. Earthquake protection for building owners therefore remains voluntary and organised privately.","autor":"","ort":"Schweiz\/Bern","bildunterschrift":"","zusammenfassung":"
\n<\/strong>For owners, investors and holders of larger portfolios, the decision is more than just a political signal. It keeps the financing of earthquake risks outside the scope of a compulsory federal scheme and leaves cover to voluntary private policies. Anyone wishing to cover such risks must continue to organise and finance them themselves.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>In Parliament, doubts about practicability and jurisdiction prevailed. According to the Parliamentary Services, a minority did envisage a streamlined scheme without ongoing premiums. However, the majority refused to grant the federal government this additional competence. For the property sector, this means one thing above all else: there is still no compulsory, nationwide scheme, nor is there a new collective financing mechanism for claims.<\/p>\n\r\n \t