![]() |
Regardless, in my experience, if these events were an issue the insurance underwriters would be the first to drive such mitigative requirements like they do for structures in hurricane or flooding prone areas. Performance Against Debris and Wind LoadsTo simulate the wind speeds up to 250 MPH present in tornadoes, the Wind Engineering Research Center at Texas Tech University was the first to design an air cannon that could shoot 2x4s and other objects to duplicate flying debris conditions during high winds and tornadoes. Debris flying at over 100 MPH passed right through a standard wood framed wall leaving inhabitants at risk, while an ICF wall with 2 1/2” of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) foam on each side of the concrete, was not damaged2.The strength of a tornado in the United States is estimated using the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale). The scale has six categories from zero (EF-0) to five (EF-5) representing increasing degrees of damage. An ICF wall can offer a wind resistance of 250 MPH which is equal to an EF-5 tornado. The strength is based on the wall’s composition of steel reinforcement and concrete. In addition, ICF walls are resistant to the water-damage often associated with tornadoes, hurricanes and other storms. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11886850)
See Chock Pullers link above - tornadoes clearly are a bigger issue than many realise.
|
It's like safety - you get as much safety as you are prepared to pay for (Baltimore bridge again) - if you aren't prepared to wear the cost of protecting your assets then don't be surprised when something bad happens which, with hindsight, you realise you could have prevented.
Building codes are there to protect people but they are easily watered down by pressure from builders who want volume not quality. Why else do you still have so many wood frame houses in high fire risk or high tornado risk areas? As for the underwriters, they know the probabilities and make more money out of charging people for unlikely outcomes - if you had a super safe building that would provide ultimate protection, how would they be able to justify hiking your premiums every year? |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11888107)
As for the underwriters, they know the probabilities and make more money out of charging people for unlikely outcomes - if you had a super safe building that would provide ultimate protection, how would they be able to justify hiking your premiums every year?
|
Obviously you know best
|
I expect that insurance underwriters dislike uncertainty the most. If they don't have sufficient statistical data about something they are likely to charge more. For a large enough structure and large enough policy I expect they would hire structural and environmental engineers to reduce that uncertainty, but for a residential home? They will charge more because it cost more.
On the converse, in a place where they have seen certain structures do well they may change their minds when the accommodation is obvious. For example, the use of roof-ties in hurricane prone areas have been known for decades; also reinforced garage doors. They may drop insurance entirely if those are not in place. The key is the amount of certainty based on experience. |
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 11888387)
Easy because they do that now. You could build the safest, most storm proof structure and the insurance is under no obligation to reduce your rate. So why spend extra money on a super structure that you'll never recoup and still pay the same insurance premiums to cover that structure? Matter of fact they would probably up your rate since the cost to repair or replace that super structure cost a lot more. But thats provided the insurance would even write you a policy. If everyone started to built brick-sheet houses they would assume there was a known reason and probably leave the area like they've done in a number of hurricane prone states.
|
Originally Posted by MechEngr
(Post 11888435)
I expect that insurance underwriters dislike uncertainty the most. If they don't have sufficient statistical data about something they are likely to charge more.
The third gave me a quote but offered no discount for the additional preventative measures I was taking in its construction. So since I was going to pay the same cost for replacement insurance, I had my builder cull out the overkill building items since I wasn't in a high velocity wind zone and kept the common sense items like you mentioned. Its been 17 years and I'm still money ahead than if I had built 100% Dade County compliant and thats even after a 300%+ increase in my premiums. I think if insurers were more proactive with preventing damage than just making a buck, more people like myself would take the initiative to invest in better mitigative options to reduce damages. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:38. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.