A query for the HH seismic and insurance experts
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.
Comments
-
Chinned for Mega thrust type event...YellowSnow said:
Mega thrust type event.
I kind of want to call for one... -
$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.
-
You might be safe in your part of the state but @dnc ain'ttenndawg said:
Chinned for Mega thrust type event...YellowSnow said:
Mega thrust type event.
I kind of want to call for one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1811–12_New_Madrid_earthquakes -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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. -
BearsWiin said:
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, 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. -
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. -
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.
