Scale my Richter
December 28, 2005 7:00 AM Subscribe
I just bought a house in St. Louis. Earthquake coverage or no?
we need more info. Cost per year?
Here's a Wired article about the fault in New Madrid.
posted by cosmicbandito at 7:23 AM on December 28, 2005
Here's a Wired article about the fault in New Madrid.
posted by cosmicbandito at 7:23 AM on December 28, 2005
Response by poster: It approximately doubles my homeowner's insurance cost. 660 v 1269/yr
posted by pieoverdone at 7:31 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by pieoverdone at 7:31 AM on December 28, 2005
From a Nevada-related site:
Consider the following as you decide whether or not it is right for you to purchase earthquake insurance:
* There is an earthquake hazard in western Nevada, so there is the potential for loss in an earthquake.
* The insurance companies set the rates so that on average they will not lose money on earthquake insurance.
* You cannot count on financial aid from government resources if you experience an earthquake loss.
* Single-family wood frame structures that were built recently performed reasonably well in recent serious U. S. earthquakes. However, damage to contents is likely to be greater than structural damage to your house.
posted by badger_flammable at 7:45 AM on December 28, 2005
Consider the following as you decide whether or not it is right for you to purchase earthquake insurance:
* There is an earthquake hazard in western Nevada, so there is the potential for loss in an earthquake.
* The insurance companies set the rates so that on average they will not lose money on earthquake insurance.
* You cannot count on financial aid from government resources if you experience an earthquake loss.
* Single-family wood frame structures that were built recently performed reasonably well in recent serious U. S. earthquakes. However, damage to contents is likely to be greater than structural damage to your house.
posted by badger_flammable at 7:45 AM on December 28, 2005
Some information on the construction and age of your home would be useful. It's my understanding that older, brick homes (which aren't uncommon in the St. Louis area) don't perform well when earthquakes hit, for example.
posted by HiddenInput at 7:49 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by HiddenInput at 7:49 AM on December 28, 2005
One of the problems with earthquake insurance is that there can be very large deductibles - I've seen them as much as 15% of the house, for structural damage, and likewise for contents. (With contents figured based on the value of the house - so with a $200,000 house, you'd have to pay for the first $30,000 of contents that are damaged/lost.)
What are the deductibles in your case? Does the policy pay for hotel or similar shelter if the house is uninhabitable (and, if so, for how many days, and at what maximum price)?
Anther variable is the house (age; well built?) and the land it's on (fill/mud is very dangerous; bedrock is far safer).
[You might the alternative of an investment in structural reinforcement (if you expect to be there a while), and minor fixes like attaching the hot water heater to the wall (so it doesn't "dance" off its platform) and attaching bookcases to walls.
posted by WestCoaster at 7:50 AM on December 28, 2005
What are the deductibles in your case? Does the policy pay for hotel or similar shelter if the house is uninhabitable (and, if so, for how many days, and at what maximum price)?
Anther variable is the house (age; well built?) and the land it's on (fill/mud is very dangerous; bedrock is far safer).
[You might the alternative of an investment in structural reinforcement (if you expect to be there a while), and minor fixes like attaching the hot water heater to the wall (so it doesn't "dance" off its platform) and attaching bookcases to walls.
posted by WestCoaster at 7:50 AM on December 28, 2005
The deductible would be good info, as would your risk tolerance. The rest of it would just be math, assuming perfect information. The expected value of the insurance is the present value of (likelihood of an earthquake * the $ damage) for the number of years you intend to live there. The cost of the insurance is the present value of $609/year. The difference between the two would be the answer, assuming you are risk neutral.
posted by yerfatma at 8:01 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by yerfatma at 8:01 AM on December 28, 2005
Earthquake hazard maps for the curious. Here's one type of hazard map for your area.
posted by musicinmybrain at 8:50 AM on December 28, 2005
posted by musicinmybrain at 8:50 AM on December 28, 2005
My theory of Earthquake insurance:
1. If you can afford it, you don't need it. (No one in the bay area that I know of has it, because it costs as much as buying another house)
2. I'm in St. Louis and my house is 106 years old, I figure it's survived the earthquakes here so far, so I imagine it will do ok in the future, Unless...
3. If there is an earthquake big enough to seriously mess up this house, I assume the world will be coming to an end. So I imagine there would be some sort of federal assistance at that point, all fema-style.
posted by muddylemon at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2005
1. If you can afford it, you don't need it. (No one in the bay area that I know of has it, because it costs as much as buying another house)
2. I'm in St. Louis and my house is 106 years old, I figure it's survived the earthquakes here so far, so I imagine it will do ok in the future, Unless...
3. If there is an earthquake big enough to seriously mess up this house, I assume the world will be coming to an end. So I imagine there would be some sort of federal assistance at that point, all fema-style.
posted by muddylemon at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2005
As mentioned above, the two most important things to consider are the ground your home is built on, and the structure of your home.
If you are on fill, such as an old river floodplain, you will experience much more damage than if you were on bedrock. If your house is built with unreinforced masonry, or is not bolted to the foundation, you are more likely to have serious damage.
Wood frame houses, either bolted to the foundation or built on a slab, seem to fare best, because of the flexibility in structure. My home falls into this category, and I'm on bedrock, so although I live very near the epicenter for the Loma Prieta earthquake, I don't have quake insurance. It's not worth the money. This house only suffered a damaged chimney, while other houses in my town were destroyed.
You can protect yourself from contents damage by anchoring large objects. Use drywall anchors for tall bookshelves, straps for your water heater and television, etc. (You'd be surprised at how far a TV can be hurled.)
posted by shifafa at 10:39 AM on December 28, 2005
If you are on fill, such as an old river floodplain, you will experience much more damage than if you were on bedrock. If your house is built with unreinforced masonry, or is not bolted to the foundation, you are more likely to have serious damage.
Wood frame houses, either bolted to the foundation or built on a slab, seem to fare best, because of the flexibility in structure. My home falls into this category, and I'm on bedrock, so although I live very near the epicenter for the Loma Prieta earthquake, I don't have quake insurance. It's not worth the money. This house only suffered a damaged chimney, while other houses in my town were destroyed.
You can protect yourself from contents damage by anchoring large objects. Use drywall anchors for tall bookshelves, straps for your water heater and television, etc. (You'd be surprised at how far a TV can be hurled.)
posted by shifafa at 10:39 AM on December 28, 2005
The premium increase is a direct reflection of the scale of the risk. If you wanted earthquake coverage in western Virginia, it'd cost you just a few bucks. If you wanted it in San Francisco, I'm not sure you could get it.
I would not get earthquake coverage on a rental home. (Which would cover relocation, new possessions, a hotel room, etc.) But if I owned a home in St. Freaking Louis, I'd damned well get the coverage. That's just the cost of living on the New Madrid fault.
posted by waldo at 11:09 AM on December 28, 2005
I would not get earthquake coverage on a rental home. (Which would cover relocation, new possessions, a hotel room, etc.) But if I owned a home in St. Freaking Louis, I'd damned well get the coverage. That's just the cost of living on the New Madrid fault.
posted by waldo at 11:09 AM on December 28, 2005
The two most important things to consider are the ground your home is built on, and the structure of your home. If you are on fill, such as an old river floodplain, you will experience much more damage than if you were on bedrock. If your house is built with unreinforced masonry, or is not bolted to the foundation, you are more likely to have serious damage.
This is absolutely correct.
One of the problems with earthquake insurance is that there can be very large deductibles
This is also correct. Moreover, earthquake insurance is often very particular about what is covered and under what circumstances. Legal wording for common fire and flood insurance policies are pretty straightforward. Earthquake insurance can be rather persnickety about what actually gets covered.
Recommendation: In St. Louis, flood insurance is mandatory. Earthquake insurance is surplusage -- you can do without.
posted by frogan at 2:11 PM on December 28, 2005
This is absolutely correct.
One of the problems with earthquake insurance is that there can be very large deductibles
This is also correct. Moreover, earthquake insurance is often very particular about what is covered and under what circumstances. Legal wording for common fire and flood insurance policies are pretty straightforward. Earthquake insurance can be rather persnickety about what actually gets covered.
Recommendation: In St. Louis, flood insurance is mandatory. Earthquake insurance is surplusage -- you can do without.
posted by frogan at 2:11 PM on December 28, 2005
Just want to correct some info re: earthquake insurance in California. It costs me about $1.3k yearly to insure my home in LA for about $300k (after 15% deduct).
If I lived in St. Louis, I'd get it if I had a brick, stone, or block foundation. If you have a wood frame house on a bolted and shear-walled concrete foundation you are "relatively" safe. But another 7.9 and you're screwed. Is it $18k likely that you will experience that large a quake in the next 30 yrs? Could you survive financially if you had to pay to rebuild your house ($200k+)? Seems like small price for peace of mind, and you wouldn't be asking the question if you weren't worried about it.
posted by johngumbo at 4:31 PM on December 28, 2005
If I lived in St. Louis, I'd get it if I had a brick, stone, or block foundation. If you have a wood frame house on a bolted and shear-walled concrete foundation you are "relatively" safe. But another 7.9 and you're screwed. Is it $18k likely that you will experience that large a quake in the next 30 yrs? Could you survive financially if you had to pay to rebuild your house ($200k+)? Seems like small price for peace of mind, and you wouldn't be asking the question if you weren't worried about it.
posted by johngumbo at 4:31 PM on December 28, 2005
« Older How to Propose to my lucky girlfriend? | Need Suggestion for Bar in Midtown -- Wednesday... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by caddis at 7:15 AM on December 28, 2005