• The retention of some liability through a high deductible or self-insurance represents a retention of some of the safety incentive of negligence liability.
  
• An insurance company may base premiums charged to an entity on that entity's past record in incurring or avoiding negligence liability.
  
• If the physical conditions which give rise to claims of negligence liability are in place when an entity applies for insurance, the insurer may be able to inspect those conditions and set a premium based on those conditions, inducing entities to reduce hazardous conditions to reduce insurance premiums.

Companies surveyed with self-insurance for tort liability, earthquake insurance and formal risk management programs tended to have more comprehensive earthquake preparedness programs than average. This relationship may be due to the higher occurence of all three programs amoung large companies, rather than a cause-and-effect relationship exisitng between insurance coverage or risk management and exemplary earthquake preparedness. No evidence of liability acting as a disincentive for safety was uncovered.

Certain legal defenses are available if one is accused of committing a tort. The most interesting of these is that the earthquake or resulting injuries were an "Act of God" and the company or business is therefore immune. In the legal sense, an "Act of God" is a natural event causing damage which people do not cause and over which they have no control. Although the earthquake event is perhaps the epitome of an "Act of God," the fact is that earthquakes occur in California. The damage resulting from an earthquake may be foreseeable and under some circumstances can be mitigated, at least partially.

The research concludes that this defense may work in only two very limited situations.

ABAG' survey of experts in the fields of geology, engineering, preparedness, and related disciplines showed a strong consensus on various hazards that produce foreseeable damage.

• Tort law makes a distinction between "inadvertently" and "deliberately" risky conduct. If the defendant's behavior can be labeled as "reckless", not only can the jury require the defendant to compensate the victim, it also can require that the defendant pay punitive damages.
  
• Under California law, the contributory negligence of a victim does not bar recovery but only reduces the size of recovery.
  
• Developers may be liable for earthquake-related damages and injuries under theories of implied warranty or strict liability.
  
• Under California law, it is unclear whether a disclaimer of liability of hold harmless agreements in a lease between the company and the lessees in the building would be valid. In any event, such a disclaimer would not protect the company from suits by third parties, guests, invitees, and customers of the lessees or the company, or the lessees' employees.
  
• Designing a building to meet code standards does not act as a shield to liability. However, not meeting earthquake-related codes will surely result in being judged negligent. A design professional will be held to a standard of behavior which is established in like cases by members of the same profession practicing in the same or similar localities. It is also likely that expert testimony would be introduced.