A query for the HH seismic and insurance experts

YellowSnow

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

tenndawg

YellowSnow said:

Mega thrust type event.

Chinned for Mega thrust type event...

I kind of want to call for one...

BearsWiin

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

YellowSnow

tenndawg said:

YellowSnow said:

Mega thrust type event.

Chinned for Mega thrust type event...

I kind of want to call for one...

You might be safe in your part of the state but @dnc ain't
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811–12_New_Madrid_earthquakes

YellowSnow

BearsWiin said:

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

Too late to bolt; most of the basement is finished would be a major and expensive undertaking. The scary thing about where we live, is that a megathrust event would make 1906 or 1989 SFO look like child's play.

BearsWiin

YellowSnow said:

BearsWiin said:

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

Too late to bolt; most of the basement is finished would be a major and expensive undertaking. The scary thing about where we live, is that a megathrust event would make 1906 or 1989 SFO look like child's play.

In that case you might never see an insurance payout before the company goes bust. WA is predominantly white, so Trump might let the feds help you out, tho

Southerndawg

I opted not to have it when I lived there. The time scale between big events is on a geological time scale, so statistically, it's probably not worth the money. To state the obvious, damage all depends on how "big" the quake is, how close you are to the epicenter, and the type of construction. Wood frame is pretty flexible, it can handle shock loading and displacements pretty well. I had a "mid-century" wood frame, beam and post home in Kirkland when the 2001 event hit (it also saw the 1965 event). No real damage, though the brick fireplace looked like some cracking may have developed in some parts of the mortar. Your house has seen all three events and it fared well, you're probably okay, barring a high magnitude quake, in which case hope for personal survival and a secondary cause of total loss of the home, or if you're really worried about it, pony up for the rider. It's pretty cheap in the big scheme of things.

Kaepsknee

YellowSnow said:

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

They will no doubt make you retrofit with straps if it hasn't been done already. But you're probably talking a difference of $100 a year either way with different carriers. Many companies don't offer 10% ded's so that's good.

I'd buy especially if they don't require a strap. But look tight into that, as Agents are shady and not always are there inspections required. So if you don't know the agent well I would call the companies Customer service line and make sure that the house doesn't need to be strapped to write the endorsement. Because if the big one were to hit and you didn't have straps when required, they would deny coverage.

dnc

BearsWiin said:

YellowSnow said:

BearsWiin said:

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

Too late to bolt; most of the basement is finished would be a major and expensive undertaking. The scary thing about where we live, is that a megathrust event would make 1906 or 1989 SFO look like child's play.

In that case you might never see an insurance payout before the company goes bust. WA is predominantly liberal pussies, so no chance in hell Trump willl let the feds help you out, tho

Alexis

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

They will no doubt make you retrofit with straps if it hasn't been done already. But you're probably talking a difference of $100 a year either way with different carriers. Many companies don't offer 10% ded's so that's good.

I'd buy especially if they don't require a strap. But look tight into that, as Agents are shady and not always are there inspections required. So if you don't know the agent well I would call the companies Customer service line and make sure that the house doesn't need to be strapped to write the endorsement. Because if the big one were to hit and you didn't have straps when required, they would deny coverage.

FREE PUB!!

We rarely sell it. I don't have it. Usually not really worth the money. And owning a 1927 home, it is much more likely to handle an earthquake. There is a reason older homes cost more to cover by most companies. It's because they cost alot more to replace, due to the fact that they don't make em like that anymore.

Make sure your water heater is strapped. Make sure any big china hutches are attached to the wall and spend the $640 on hookers and blow.

YellowSnow

Alexis said:

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

They will no doubt make you retrofit with straps if it hasn't been done already. But you're probably talking a difference of $100 a year either way with different carriers. Many companies don't offer 10% ded's so that's good.

I'd buy especially if they don't require a strap. But look tight into that, as Agents are shady and not always are there inspections required. So if you don't know the agent well I would call the companies Customer service line and make sure that the house doesn't need to be strapped to write the endorsement. Because if the big one were to hit and you didn't have straps when required, they would deny coverage.

FREE PUB!!

We rarely sell it. I don't have it. Usually not really worth the money. And owning a 1927 home, it is much more likely to handle an earthquake. There is a reason older homes cost more to cover by most companies. It's because they cost alot more to replace, due to the fact that they don't make em like that anymore.

Make sure your water heater is strapped. Make sure any big china hutches are attached to the wall and spend the $640 on hookers and blow.

At this point I'm a lean towards No. Probably won't be in the house for more than 2 or 3 years longer. And as @Southerndawg points out the time scale of the big one in Seattle is quite long- i.e., once every 500 years and we are 317 years into the cycle. And in the big picture of things, I am most concerned about my family not being wiped out and insurance doesn't give you piece or mind for that. If there was a quake bad enough to exceed a 10% deductible, all of Seattle is fucked meaning it would take years to even get a contractor lined up to rebuild. Most likely their would be some sore of low interest federal loan to rebuild and we could live with the higher monthly payment for a while.

RaceBannon

BearsWiin said:

YellowSnow said:

BearsWiin said:

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

Too late to bolt; most of the basement is finished would be a major and expensive undertaking. The scary thing about where we live, is that a megathrust event would make 1906 or 1989 SFO look like child's play.

In that case you might never see an insurance payout before the company goes bust. WA is predominantly white, so Trump might let the feds help you out, tho

We? are fucked in Cali then. The cost benefit analysis doesn't work here but 640$ a year is cheap

Another reason I enjoy being a enter in the golden years

HanseeHall78

Deductibles for Earthquake policies are typically a stated percentage of the value of the property, not a percentage of the value of the loss. So, for example, if you own a $750k house and have a 10% EQ deductible, your deductible is $75k, and any loss less than $75k would not be covered.

Absolutely you need to make sure your framing is securely anchored to the foundation. Also, make sure you have adequate shear walls.

whlinder

The New Yorker article on this is fascinating.
Based on that info, would say strap it down and protect the water heater, then invest in being prepared for the rest of the metro area being devoid of usual services for a while. Like Puerto Rico is facing now. "Oh hey we survived the hurricane, oh shit we have no food, water, fuel, medicine and resources to get them for 6 months"

BearsWiin

RaceBannon said:

BearsWiin said:

YellowSnow said:

BearsWiin said:

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

Too late to bolt; most of the basement is finished would be a major and expensive undertaking. The scary thing about where we live, is that a megathrust event would make 1906 or 1989 SFO look like child's play.

In that case you might never see an insurance payout before the company goes bust. WA is predominantly white, so Trump might let the feds help you out, tho

We? are fucked in Cali then. The cost benefit analysis doesn't work here but 640$ a year is cheap

No we aren't, because CA's strike-slip faults don't do the damage that the Cascadia Subduction Fault will do. If you were referring to the region's brownskin population, then I argee

When we bought our house 15 years ago our insurance agent told us that, by law, he had to offer us earthquake insurance and to give us the overview. At the end of the overview he said he wouldn't recommend buying it because it was far too expensive for what it actually covered; the deductible was too high and the payout too low.

$640/yr just to cover an earthquake actually doesn't sound that great. Maybe just put $640/year into a mutual fund and cash it out when the exceedingly rare huge earthquake actually hits. You'd probably come out ahead.

Kaepsknee

BearsWiin said:

YellowSnow said:

BearsWiin said:

$640/yr with 10% deductible is vastly better than what is offered in CA. Here, earthquake insurance is definitely not worth it. Might be up there.

Bolt your house down. One of the best things you can do to mitigate damage. Much of the preventable damage from the 1989 Loma Prieta quake down here was from older houses hopping off of their foundations.

Too late to bolt; most of the basement is finished would be a major and expensive undertaking. The scary thing about where we live, is that a megathrust event would make 1906 or 1989 SFO look like child's play.

In that case you might never see an insurance payout before the company goes bust. WA is predominantly white, so Trump might let the feds help you out, tho

Re-insurance is a thing.

Swaye

Alexis said:

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

They will no doubt make you retrofit with straps if it hasn't been done already. But you're probably talking a difference of $100 a year either way with different carriers. Many companies don't offer 10% ded's so that's good.

I'd buy especially if they don't require a strap. But look tight into that, as Agents are shady and not always are there inspections required. So if you don't know the agent well I would call the companies Customer service line and make sure that the house doesn't need to be strapped to write the endorsement. Because if the big one were to hit and you didn't have straps when required, they would deny coverage.

FREE PUB!!

We rarely sell it. I don't have it. Usually not really worth the money. And owning a 1927 home, it is much more likely to handle an earthquake. There is a reason older homes cost more to cover by most companies. It's because they cost alot more to replace, due to the fact that they don't make em like that anymore.

Make sure your water heater is strapped. Make sure any big china hutches are attached to the wall and spend the $640 on hookers and blow.

Best advice ever in this shithole.

Kaepsknee

YellowSnow said:

Alexis said:

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

They will no doubt make you retrofit with straps if it hasn't been done already. But you're probably talking a difference of $100 a year either way with different carriers. Many companies don't offer 10% ded's so that's good.

I'd buy especially if they don't require a strap. But look tight into that, as Agents are shady and not always are there inspections required. So if you don't know the agent well I would call the companies Customer service line and make sure that the house doesn't need to be strapped to write the endorsement. Because if the big one were to hit and you didn't have straps when required, they would deny coverage.

FREE PUB!!

We rarely sell it. I don't have it. Usually not really worth the money. And owning a 1927 home, it is much more likely to handle an earthquake. There is a reason older homes cost more to cover by most companies. It's because they cost alot more to replace, due to the fact that they don't make em like that anymore.

Make sure your water heater is strapped. Make sure any big china hutches are attached to the wall and spend the $640 on hookers and blow.

At this point I'm a lean towards No. Probably won't be in the house for more than 2 or 3 years longer. And as @Southerndawg points out the time scale of the big one in Seattle is quite long- i.e., once every 500 years and we are 317 years into the cycle. And in the big picture of things, I am most concerned about my family not being wiped out and insurance doesn't give you piece or mind for that. If there was a quake bad enough to exceed a 10% deductible, all of Seattle is fucked meaning it would take years to even get a contractor lined up to rebuild. Most likely their would be some sore of low interest federal loan to rebuild and we could live with the higher monthly payment for a while.

A couple last tidbits to add in your decision process is that your contents would also be covered in an earthquake should one hit.

Also you would be paid to live somewhere else that didn't get leveled if you have it as well until your house is rebuilt.

YellowSnow

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

Alexis said:

salemcoog said:

YellowSnow said:

Serious questions: where do you guys stand on the subject of earthquake insurance? I've always been somewhat skeptical and on the fence on this topic. I don't currently carry a policy but I am considering bighting the bullet.

My scenario:

- 1927 wood frame home in north Seattle
- USGS says I'm on about the most solid ground in the entire city (i.e., glacial till) short of bedrock and more limited acceleration compared to more vulnerable areas.
- Not strapped on to the foundation

Home's been through the 1940's, 1965, and 2001 events just fine like most in the area, but have no idea how it would fair in a Mega thrust type event. It's not cheap to insure for earthquakes; about $640 a year with a 10% deductible.

They will no doubt make you retrofit with straps if it hasn't been done already. But you're probably talking a difference of $100 a year either way with different carriers. Many companies don't offer 10% ded's so that's good.

I'd buy especially if they don't require a strap. But look tight into that, as Agents are shady and not always are there inspections required. So if you don't know the agent well I would call the companies Customer service line and make sure that the house doesn't need to be strapped to write the endorsement. Because if the big one were to hit and you didn't have straps when required, they would deny coverage.

FREE PUB!!

We rarely sell it. I don't have it. Usually not really worth the money. And owning a 1927 home, it is much more likely to handle an earthquake. There is a reason older homes cost more to cover by most companies. It's because they cost alot more to replace, due to the fact that they don't make em like that anymore.

Make sure your water heater is strapped. Make sure any big china hutches are attached to the wall and spend the $640 on hookers and blow.

At this point I'm a lean towards No. Probably won't be in the house for more than 2 or 3 years longer. And as @Southerndawg points out the time scale of the big one in Seattle is quite long- i.e., once every 500 years and we are 317 years into the cycle. And in the big picture of things, I am most concerned about my family not being wiped out and insurance doesn't give you piece or mind for that. If there was a quake bad enough to exceed a 10% deductible, all of Seattle is fucked meaning it would take years to even get a contractor lined up to rebuild. Most likely their would be some sore of low interest federal loan to rebuild and we could live with the higher monthly payment for a while.

A couple last tidbits to add in your decision process is that your contents would also be covered in an earthquake should one hit.

Also you would be paid to live somewhere else that didn't get leveled if you have it as well until your house is rebuilt.

Fair points.

AZDuck

If the Cascadia fault goes bigly or Mount Rainier goes off, your all ded anyway.

Hookers and blow.

YellowSnow

AZDuck said:

If the Cascadia fault goes bigly or Mount Rainier goes off, your all ded anyway.

Hookers and blow.

I got a tank-less water heater system and no China in this round of marriage. Things are looking good. Mt Rainier is a Purple J (RIP) problem. The lahars can't get to me.