The devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on September 21, 1999 severely damaged the island. According to the statistics compiled in relation to this disaster, over NT$300 billion in damage was caused, 2,457 lives were lost, 679 people were seriously wounded, 52,605 houses were demolished and a further 53,133 were unsuitable for occupation. In evoking the reality of trauma, death and destruction, the 921 earthquake had a tremendous impact on the community at all levels. Understanding this incident made me realize the fear that people have of the unpredictable, the unpreventable nature of the calamity and our helplessness in responding to it. A feasible way of responding to such a disaster would be to have a well-designed insurance system in order to defuse a potential hazard of such a magnitude. The implementation of earthquake insurance could appropriately offer protection against the losses of life and property of the insured by providing suitable and timely compensation. The introduction of primary earthquake insurance by the government is a strategy to ensure the security of the economic life of the general public and also to ease the financial difficulties resulting from the natural disaster. Currently, primary earthquake insurance is administered by an alliance of the members of the insurance industry based on Article 144 of the Insurance Act. It does not violate the spirit of the Fair Trade Act in banning the formation of an alliance in the industry. However, the earthquake insurance should be purchased together with home fire insurance. Can this be considered to be a tie-in according to the wording of the Fair Trade Act? Is it appropriate in light of the Fair Trade Act? In this study, I will focus on the current system of earthquake insurance and the spirit of tie-ins in accordance with the Fair Trade Act in so far as it relates to the insurance industry.