Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance? 15

[Lion06]

I am making some assumptions here, so please let me know if I am off-base with them.
It is my understanding that most residential homes are not engineered, but are simply built using the prescriptive requirements of IBC/IRC.
It is also my understanding that in hurricane-prone regions an exceptionally high percentage of damage to structures is to residential structures.
If this is true, I can only imagine it is becuase these structures aren't engineered. These areas (hurricane-prone) seem to have some of the highest homeowner's insurance rates in the country.
Would requiring homes to be engineered cause a reduction in premiums due to the fact that the homes would be less likely to sustain heavy damage during such an event?
Just a thought, any opinions?

 

[WmacG]

Texas has a program for counties along the coast called windstorm insurance (for hurricanes). To get the insurance, the house has to be inspected by an engineer who fills out some forms. The inspection is paid for by the homeowner who can shop around for inspectors. Without the inspection, they can't get the insurance.

 

[csd72]

In my experience, a well engineered structure does not necessarily cost any more money, it is just that that money is spent on the areas where it does the most good.

Sometimes it does cost more, but that is why an engineer is justified, because we can tell the difference of when it is necessary and when it is not.

Looking at the bigger picture, surely the cost to society (and the environment) is larger if we are continually replacing these buildings rather than building them to last. Not to mention the social cost of having whole suburbs wiped out and populations displaced.

 

[fasboater]

How can a code, a contractor or a code inspector assure anyone of an economical and structurally sound home? I would think there is only one professional that can offer this kind of assurance and that’s an experienced structural engineer working in conjunction with the other 3.

I like WmacG home state answer, if it’s in a special zone (wind, heavy snow, earthquake) the only way that property is insurable is to have a structural review either up front on new homes or after the fact on existing homes.

 

[csd72]

Yes but with existing homes, how do you inspect the structure when it is all covered up? It only takes one crucial tie down to be missing to compromise the whole structure.

 

[cvg]

...in hurricane-prone regions an exceptionally high percentage of damage to structures is to residential structures. If this is true, I can only imagine it is becuase these structures aren't engineered. These areas (hurricane-prone) seem to have some of the highest homeowner's insurance rates in the country.

I think there is some misunderstanding in the basic argument here. The quote above assumes that the insurance claims filed in these hurricane prone areas are for structural failures of non-engineered residential homes.

Most of these claims are for damages such as missing shingles, broken windows, damaged siding, water damage (including mold) etc. I would hazard a guess that except for the largest hurricanes, the majority of the insurance claims are for flooding and "non-structural" repairs. Requiring a structural engineer will not reduce these claims. However, spending more money for commercial quality roofing, siding etc on residential structures might. Tightening up building codes to require these more durable building materials is one way to achieve this goal. And insurance companies already do evaluate home construction and base the premium rates on they type of construction. For instance, in California - you will have a difficult time insuring a home with a cedar shake roof. However, all the new homes are built with clay tile roofs and most with stucco siding which significantly reduces the danger from wildfire. Also, building codes and real estate laws require seismic anchoring of the building to the foundation which greatly increases the safety of the home during an earthquake.

 

[PatBethea]

Looking at the bigger picture, surely the cost to society (and the environment) is larger if we are continually replacing these buildings rather than building them to last.

Really? Is that what we're doing? Or are we talking about a very very small percentage of all houses built? Keep some perspective.

You know, while we're at it we should go ahead and require that an ME design all the HVAC systems in residential use - you know, because the potential energy savings will benefit society (and the environment). We should probably get an EE involved, too - wouldn't want an electrical contractor or home owner to accidently size the wrong size breaker or wire - the public's safety is at risk - there could be a fire. Fire - we should get an engineer to design a fire suppression system for each new residence being built - you can never be too safe. While we're at it, we should probably get a civil engineer involved with designing a storm water facility for each new residence - wouldn't want the runoff to leave the property, you know - bad for the environment. After all - an engineer's fee is so small, the new homeowner will never notice these new requirements- and he'll probably thank us, too - afterall, it is for his own good.

 

[nutte]

That post deserves a star.

 

[archeng59]

Where I live, there are a large number of houses constructed that are not engineered. Many of the homes are constructed by people who are not really qualified to be a contractor. There are no licensing laws in this state regarding who can and who cannot be a contractor (except for plumbing and electrical work). There are framers building homes who just "graduated" from a vo-tech program and who are building large custom homes without any experienced framers supervising their work. There are alot of GC's building homes who decided that accounting (or whatever their previous job happened to be) was not fun and thought building custom homes was an easy and lucrative way to make a living. A large number of homes are inspected by structural engineers looking at foundation and framing problems caused by poor construction practices. Sometimes, the city framing inspector will contact me and require that I review something suspicious. More often than not, there is a problem that the contractor must pay me to help him/her solve before the city official will approve the framing. I do not know if having the homes engineered would have prevented any of the problems that I have looked at personally, but at least the homeowners would likely have been made aware of potential problems BEFORE the homes were constructed, not several months AFTER they moved into the homes. I believe a great number of the problems would not have occurred if contractors were more knowledgable about site preparation (don't just scrape the grass away), foundation construction, expansive soils, framing configurations that do not fall within the prescriptive requirements of the IRC. Insurance claims were made and paid for all of the problems that I inspected after the home was constructed and the owners move into the house.

Pat has a point: some people can build a good home without following any codes and still have a quality home. I encounter many people with the attitude that engineers and architects are not needed because "man" has been building shelters since the day when Ugh piled several sticks together to make a simple hut. It is my opinion that most people, contractors and homeowners alike, are not knowledgable enough to build without codes and guidance.

 

[csd72]

Pat,

We are talking about doing this in the areas that are most at risk, not just everywhere. I agree that having engineers involved in houses for low wind/seismic regions is a waste of time, but in many of these regions hurricanes can/and will happen.

It takes a lot of 5k amounts to equal the tens of millions spent on wind damaged houses in events like katrina (even ignoring the effects of the levees).

Anyway you seem to be very opinionated on this for a mechanical engineer.

 

[Lion06]

csd-
I would give you a second star if I could.

 

[JKW05]

I agree with nutte...I'm giving Pat another star for that last post, as well.

 

[Lion06]

This post was really not intended to debate the merits of engineering houses. It was meant to get opinions on whether engineering houses (in hurricane prone regions) could be used to reduce homeowner's insurance rates.
Again, it is my impression that the greatest damage (structural or otherwise) is done to residential homes. I don't think it is a coincidence that these happen to be the structures that are not engineered.
There was actually an article in STRUCTURE Magazine some time ago about the differences in damage in high-wind regions between commercial (engineered) and residential (non-engineered) structures.

 

[DonPhillips]

The insurance agency, after Hurricane Andrew, started to rate building departments similar to how they rate fire departments. I understand these ratings are used by insurance companies to set rates. The better departments are requiring calculations or seals and you are seeing more and more seals on residential projects. This is certainly true in central Ohio.




Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[UcfSE]

No amount of engineering will compensate for a contractor who ignores them or an inspector who enforces nothing. We are doing fine on the design side. I suggest we enforce the rules we have rather than make new ones.

 

[Atomic25]

UcfSE,
As an engineer who has done his share of neighborhoods, I'll have to say amen to that brother.

 

[CJJS]

UcfSE,
Agreed 100%. Therein lines the real problem.

 

[civilperson]

The hurricane regions such as Florida have prescriptive codes that substitute for Engineered Buildings. The impact rules and tie-down rules are substancial and much improved over previous codes. The insurance companies are on board with the improved codes and give breaks in rates for new construction.

 

[swearingen]

A note on grandpa's house and the others that are still standing after umpteen years - Bravo! Good for them! They did it right. Have you counted all of those other houses built by old timers that didn't make it due to some failure, whether it be foundation, framing, an act of God or whatever? I bet there's MANY more of those. Codes try and take what ol' Granpappy did right and help everybody else out that didn't know how to build their own house.

As for Florida's codes and how it pans out for insurance companies - here's the road map:

1. Florida has passed very tough codes for new construction. They are, by law, supposed to be followed.
2. An inspection is required by an official prior to occupancy.
3. They won't sell you a policy on a new house that doesn't pass inspection.

Where does that leave us? ENFORCEMENT - yes, I agree with several of the recent posts on this point. There is no discount for insurance if they're built this way, it's a requirement to get the insurance in the first place!

Jim Delahey (bless his departed soul - I was lucky enough to meet him) and many other very knowledgeable engineers had a hand in shaping the Florida codes. In my mind EVERY new house in Florida, if built strictly to code, is a de facto engineered home when it comes to hurricane winds.

The Katrina situation is entirely different and really doesn't belong in this discussion. However, since it came up, I'll pipe in some more confusion: The VAST majority of the dollar value damage of Katrina occurred after the winds had died down and it was just a blustery drizzle. Why? Levees, that had nothing to do with engineering houses, gave way. Most of the houses that were destroyed were over 50 years old and had weathered many hurricanes (including Betsy, Camille and Andrew - all stronger than Katrina wind-wise), but couldn't hold up against the floods.

As a side note, we've got a designer here in our office from New Orleans that had 3' of water in his house - in the SECOND FLOOR!!



If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS