A query for the HH seismic and insurance experts
Comments
-
We? are fucked in Cali then. The cost benefit analysis doesn't work here but 640$ a year is cheapBearsWiin said:
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, thoYellowSnow said:
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 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.
Another reason I enjoy being a enter in the golden years -
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 $75k would not be covered.
Absolutely you need to make sure your framing is securely anchored to the foundation. Also, make sure you have adequate shear walls. -
The New Yorker article on this is fascinating.
Based on that info, would say strap it down and protect the water heater, then invest in being prepared for the rest of the metro area being devoid of usual services for a while. Like Puerto Rico is facing now. "Oh hey we survived the hurricane, oh shit we have no food, water, fuel, medicine and resources to get them for 6 months" -
No we aren't, because CA's strike-slip faults don't do the damage that the Cascadia Subduction Fault will do. If you were referring to the region's brownskin population, then I argeeRaceBannon said:
We? are fucked in Cali then. The cost benefit analysis doesn't work here but 640$ a year is cheapBearsWiin said:
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, thoYellowSnow said:
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 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.
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. -
Re-insurance is a thing.BearsWiin said:
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, thoYellowSnow said:
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 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. -
Best advice ever in this shithole.Alexis said:
FREE PUB!!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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.
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. -
A couple last tidbits to add in your decision process is that your contents would also be covered in an earthquake should one hit.YellowSnow said:
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.Alexis said:
FREE PUB!!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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.salemcoog said:
A couple last tidbits to add in your decision process is that your contents would also be covered in an earthquake should one hit.YellowSnow said:
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.Alexis said:
FREE PUB!!salemcoog said:
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.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.
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.
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.
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. -
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.AZDuck said:If the Cascadia fault goes bigly or Mount Rainier goes off, your all ded anyway.
Hookers and blow.
