The second one isn’t Yogi – notice the difference in the spelling.
Yogi, does the same go for areas prone to high winds and hail? Plenty of geographical zones in the US continue to get hit with those losses and repairs and replacements continue to be made.
December 20, 2018 at 4:54 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
He is enjoying the Polar Vortex as it ushers in Global Cooling.
Ohio Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 13
Thumb down 0
Me thinks PolarBearRepeel needs a vacation. He’s answers his own comments.
***************************************************************************************
I think you need to review details more carefully. Unfortunately, the post to which you replied was deleted by IJ staff for violating board rules. Have you learned anything from that?
Apparently, the post to which I above replied was deleted. It seemed to be in a grey areas as regards compliance with IJ comment board rules. I know why, but others will deny it.
Polar, Why not? Usually when a house is destroyed, it is replaced by a stronger constructed home. Building codes are usually strengthened too. Just because a 70 year old wooden home gets knocked over by a hurricane doesn’t mean a wind resistive structure will have the same results.
If a home is hurricane resistant, it may be insured for a lower premium, based on the lower probability of damage or complete loss. It would be wise to replace residences with hurricane resistant masonry or steel commercial buildings. Those businesses wouldn’t be bailed out by taxpayers, but rather, by stockholders who ultimately pay the commercial property insurance, TE, and property deductibles.
Does the Study indicate if bigger houses is for One Time Damage , or repeated damage?
I see lots of underfloor Duct Work and Carpet replaced many times, instead of Ducts being relocated over head, or Carpet replaced with Vinyl and Rugs.
Seems to me Owner should pay after second replacement.
BP
It makes sense. Coastal property is more expensive. Little houses on the coast are being bought up everyday by rich people who knock the houses down and build larger, better constructed homes. The study should have included if the original owner is building the larger homes, or it the original home is taking the insurance money and selling off the property.
Building bigger real property, using personal property indemnification, is nothing new. I remember reading an article over 20 years ago (perhaps in IJ) about the phenomenon through a study done about larger footprint rebuilds after the Painted Cave fire in Santa Barbara county. Just about every home was built with much more square footage. The personal property insurance money was put into the structure.
NO houses should replace large houses, medium-size houses, and small houses, after a hurricane hits a geo area repeatedly.
But then where would all those families be relocated? Wouldn’t that end up costing even more than rebuilding in general?
Me thinks PolarBearRepeel needs a vacation. He’s answers his own comments.
I’d be willing to bet it’s because he posts using different names and forgot to change the name on one of the posts.
The second one isn’t Yogi – notice the difference in the spelling.
Yogi, does the same go for areas prone to high winds and hail? Plenty of geographical zones in the US continue to get hit with those losses and repairs and replacements continue to be made.
He is enjoying the Polar Vortex as it ushers in Global Cooling.
Ohio Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
Thumb up 13
Thumb down 0
Me thinks PolarBearRepeel needs a vacation. He’s answers his own comments.
***************************************************************************************
I think you need to review details more carefully. Unfortunately, the post to which you replied was deleted by IJ staff for violating board rules. Have you learned anything from that?
Those families would be relocated to your backyard.
Apparently, the post to which I above replied was deleted. It seemed to be in a grey areas as regards compliance with IJ comment board rules. I know why, but others will deny it.
Polar, Why not? Usually when a house is destroyed, it is replaced by a stronger constructed home. Building codes are usually strengthened too. Just because a 70 year old wooden home gets knocked over by a hurricane doesn’t mean a wind resistive structure will have the same results.
If a home is hurricane resistant, it may be insured for a lower premium, based on the lower probability of damage or complete loss. It would be wise to replace residences with hurricane resistant masonry or steel commercial buildings. Those businesses wouldn’t be bailed out by taxpayers, but rather, by stockholders who ultimately pay the commercial property insurance, TE, and property deductibles.
Does the Study indicate if bigger houses is for One Time Damage , or repeated damage?
I see lots of underfloor Duct Work and Carpet replaced many times, instead of Ducts being relocated over head, or Carpet replaced with Vinyl and Rugs.
Seems to me Owner should pay after second replacement.
BP
It makes sense. Coastal property is more expensive. Little houses on the coast are being bought up everyday by rich people who knock the houses down and build larger, better constructed homes. The study should have included if the original owner is building the larger homes, or it the original home is taking the insurance money and selling off the property.
Building bigger real property, using personal property indemnification, is nothing new. I remember reading an article over 20 years ago (perhaps in IJ) about the phenomenon through a study done about larger footprint rebuilds after the Painted Cave fire in Santa Barbara county. Just about every home was built with much more square footage. The personal property insurance money was put into the structure.