[tbone]

Thanks, everyone, for the comments.

In addition to having owned a property and casualty insurance business, I had the misfortune to own a gulf-front rental condo that was hit by two hurricanes and one tropical storm. I know firsthand what risk is. The insurance company essentially "renewed" our property to better than it was before the storms, so although it was very inconvenient, we were OK financially.

We did not end up purchasing the Spanish Springs property for two reasons: One was the non-availability of the sinkhole endorsement in that area, and second was there were a number of ladder cracks, trim cracks, one at the edge of a window and a porch door that didn't open correctly. (crack in concrete from settling nearby) My gut said no on that one, so we did not pursue it.

I have no issue with risk (such as lightning) if insurance can be procured to cover that risk. Exposure that is not insurable is more problematic. Most people would be quite upset with the prospect of coming up with an extra $80,000 in their monthly budget if they had a sinkhole open up on their property. (or even if a smaller $20-30,000 loss occurred that's covered by the non-catastrophic 10% deductible coverage.)

In a similar vein, how comfortable would people feel if fire damage to their home were excluded by their company due to a lightning strike?

Perhaps the developer has stepped in to fill sinkholes that occurred on private property near a street, path, etc., because it created a safety hazard. This would mitigate the exposure.

I talked to a lot of people during my visit and got the impression that most are not aware of their potential sinkhole exposure. Hopefully, helpful comments posted in this thread will serve to enlighten them. (And are welcomed!)

Again, thanks to all for your input.