Mandatory home insurance in Norway is being considered by the government after the Krokstadelva fire left more than 100 households facing the loss of their homes. Around ten of the 113 affected households reportedly lacked adequate insurance for either the building, its contents or both, leaving them exposed to substantial personal losses.
The Ministry of Justice and Public Security (Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet) has now said that it will examine whether home insurance should become a legal requirement. The announcement follows growing concern about the position of families whose homes were destroyed but who cannot claim compensation from an insurer.
According to Aftenposten, State Secretary Kristine Kallset said the proposal would require a more detailed assessment before the government could decide whether to introduce new legislation. Motor vehicle liability insurance is currently compulsory in Norway, while insurance covering privately owned homes and household possessions remains formally voluntary.
Krokstadelva fire exposes gaps in household protection
The Krokstadelva fire, in Drammen municipality west of Oslo, was one of Norway’s most destructive residential fires in more than a century. Around 113 homes were affected, forcing a large number of residents to seek temporary accommodation and public assistance.
Most households were insured. However, the cases without sufficient coverage have drawn particular attention because the absence of insurance can leave owners with an outstanding mortgage, an unusable property and no private compensation to rebuild.
Some uninsured families have relied on emergency support from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (Nav), municipal services and private fundraising. The disaster has therefore raised a broader policy question: whether society should continue to treat insurance as an individual responsibility when the consequences of being uninsured may ultimately require public intervention.
Norwegian banks normally ask borrowers to insure a property before releasing a mortgage. Customers usually confirm that the building will remain insured throughout the loan period. However, there is no comprehensive national register allowing lenders or authorities to verify continuously whether every policy remains active, Aftenposten has reported.
Home insurance in Norway is already widespread
The fact that approximately 103 of the 113 affected households had some form of insurance means that coverage among the Krokstadelva residents was about 91%. This is a high proportion, but it should not be treated as a representative national estimate. The group was small, geographically concentrated and largely composed of households living in owner-occupied homes.
Available European figures nevertheless suggest that household insurance is particularly widespread in Norway. A 2025 survey by the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority found that around 62% of consumers across the EU held household insurance. The European figure includes tenants and homeowners across countries with very different housing and welfare systems, meaning that it cannot be compared directly with the Krokstadelva sample.
Several features of Norwegian society help explain the high level of coverage. According to Statistics Norway, 76.5% of Norwegian households owned their home in 2024. Building insurance is generally required by mortgage lenders, while apartment buildings are often covered collectively through a housing cooperative (borettslag) or owners’ association (sameie). Residents must normally arrange separate insurance for their personal possessions.
Household contents insurance is also included in the membership packages of several Norwegian trade unions. For example, members of many unions affiliated with the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (Landsorganisasjonen i Norge, LO) receive LOfavør contents insurance as part of their membership rather than purchasing it separately. This collective model makes coverage more accessible and reduces the risk that members remain uninsured without realising it.
Norway already mandates part of property coverage
Norway also has an established collective system for natural disasters. Under the Natural Perils Insurance Act (naturskadeforsikringsloven), every policy covering fire damage must automatically include protection against natural hazards such as storms, floods, landslides and earthquakes.
The scheme is managed through the Norwegian Natural Perils Pool (Norsk Naturskadepool), which distributes the cost of claims among participating insurers. Natural-perils protection is therefore compulsory once a person purchases fire or property insurance, although purchasing the underlying home insurance policy is not itself legally mandatory.
This makes the current debate less of a complete change in direction than an extension of an existing principle. Norway already requires insurers to share certain major risks collectively. The government must now decide whether property owners should also be legally required to enter that system.
A compulsory scheme would raise new questions
Making home insurance compulsory could reduce the number of households left without compensation after fires or other disasters. It could also limit the financial burden placed on municipalities and welfare services when uninsured residents lose their homes.
However, a legal obligation would require decisions on what minimum coverage should include, how compliance would be monitored and whether assistance should be offered to households unable to afford rising premiums. Norwegian insurance prices have increased as construction, repairs and claims have become more expensive, adding a potential affordability problem to the debate.
The Krokstadelva fire has shown that voluntary insurance already reaches a large majority of Norwegian homeowners. The remaining gap is small in percentage terms but potentially severe for the families involved. The government’s review will determine whether that residual risk should remain an individual responsibility or become part of Norway’s wider system of collective social protection.
