Hikermor has a good point about what the point of most seismic retrofitting is. I think the popular understanding is that it makes an old (sometimes VERY old) brick building with old, crumbly mortar impervious to earthquake damage, but that is generally not the case. Most retrofitting jobs seem to be intended to prevent the structure from collapsing onto occupants during the quake itself. Beyond that, such as whether the structure is still functional/habitable, is a whole different matter.

So, I think the news I see is doing a disservice when it reports that retrofitting "failed" when it may have actually done exactly what it was intended to do. Just because a structure is damaged (sometimes severely) and becomes red tagged does not mean the retrofitting failed, unless the job was specifically designed do just that.

On a related note, I was reading that even for the folks with earthquake insurance, most probably will not benefit from it because real estate prices are so high in the area and that the cost of most damage will not exceed the 5-10% deductible that exists on most policies.