5 ms·

Floridians who want me to shoulder the bill for insuring their beachfront property against hurricane damage can go to hell. Pay for the insurance yourself or mo

Floridians who want me to shoulder the bill for insuring their beachfront property against hurricane damage can go to hell. Pay for the insurance yourself or move to a place where disasters aren’t common.

tfandango 3y ago
I live in Oklahoma. Contrary to popular belief, getting your house destroyed by a tornado is unlikely. But hailstorms are on the rise and roof replacements are becoming more frequent because of them. Insurance has gone up A LOT for everyone, regardless of insurer, and for me despite installing hail resistant shingles last time. I am wondering what happens when people here can no longer afford insurance even though these are not luxury second homes. My agent told me that Texas and Oklahoma are becoming the most expensive states to insure.
- bushbaba 3y ago
  one solution is to exclude hail damage to roofs from basic home insurance policy. Similar to how earthquake and flooding is a separate policy.
  - tfandango 3y ago
    It would likely be required by mortgage companies because a new roof is 20-30k on the low end. Otherwise the risk of losing their investment is quite high.
- mechagodzilla 3y ago
  It's more that those states are becoming the most expensive to maintain intact houses in, with the increased insurance a side effect of that. I know someone in TX that has needed a new roof like 6-7 times in 10 years because of hail damage - the insurance company has been bleeding money on their house for a decade, but that's because the house has actually been sustaining significant damage every single year. The only answers to that over any length of time must be: 1) improve roofing so that they're not sustaining damage so frequently (even if it increases costs), 2) decrease the value of housing so much that replacing the roof out-of-pocket every year just becomes 'cost of doing business', or 3) stop living there because it's just intrinsically expensive. "Pay $1k yearly insurance and average $10k yearly damage" for a whole region is not going to last much longer.
  - tfandango 3y ago
    I think I am paying 3500/year now, up from 2800. My house is on the larger side (4 bedrooms), so far, I've had 2 roofs (one on my prior smaller house) in 20+ years. For me it's been 1 roof every 10 years. But I know someone who got a roof replaced and it was immediately destroyed again by a second storm. I on the other hand, fought with State Farm for 6 months about some dumb piece of metal that was dented. So, while we got hit by the second storm and likely sustained more damage, it didn't matter. It's becoming more difficult to find a place to live that does not have some potential issue, be it water, weather, heat, cold, earthquakes.... supervolcanos :)
  - toddmorey 3y ago
    At that point, wouldn't a standing seam metal roof be the best investment? The cost is about 3x, but beats an annual roof replacement.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I've wondered the same about storm damage in Florida. There has to be a better option than shingles, even really high quality shingles.
      - seanharper 3y ago
        +1 for metal roofs -- I run an insurance company that specializes in high risk areas. Metal roofs are a superior technology to shingles and tiles.
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        Metal roofs last 3x longer but cost 7x more. Depending on climate there’s some other options too.
        alistairSH 3y ago
        Metal roofs last 3x longer but cost 7x more. ... in a non-hurricane zone, right? Sounds like some of these coastal areas are on a ~5 year roof replacement cycle. Up here in DC, shingles last for 30+.
- JSeymourATL 3y ago
  Upvote for HNers in Oklahoma!
  - tfandango 3y ago
    ha one for you too then!
jarym 3y ago
This is such an American reply and one that as a European, I find mildly amusing. Where do you live that’s so safe and disasters are uncommon and aren’t on the increase? Everywhere will have different risk factors, the American attitude seems to be ‘I won’t pay for anyone else, even if it means I ultimately will have to pay more’.
- ejb999 3y ago
  There are some kind of risks everywhere, but denying the fact the some places are dramatically more risky kind of misses the point. Where I live, hardly any disasters - tornado about every 100 years, last time there was huge wildfires was just after WWII, zero risk of flooding - biggest 'risk' I have is being snowed in for a few days as I dig out - there are plenty of places that have a much lower risk profile - and people like me, that pick where we live based in part on the risk, shouldn't have to pay extra insurance to cover people who willing choose to live in low-lying, flood prone areas.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  Remind me again what part of Europe predictably and regularly receives 160 kmh winds at the same time as 3 meter floods? Are you allowed to build wooden houses along the beach there? If you build your house in an area like that and fail to build any sort of protection for expected conditions, why in the world should your losses be subsidized by everyone else? When the cost of insurance for your beach house is too high, that is a signal that you are at extreme risk, not a signal that you should pass a law to make the rest of the country pay for the portion of the risk that you can’t afford.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  The point is that "insurance at market prices" should be considered part of the all-in cost of the house, and that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have that house. Surely even as a European you agree that if you can't pay $10 million for a house on the French Riviera, then you don't get to have a house on the French Riviera; once you conceptually include insurance into the total cost of the house, the exact same logic applies.

tfandango 3y ago

I live in Oklahoma. Contrary to popular belief, getting your house destroyed by a tornado is unlikely. But hailstorms are on the rise and roof replacements are becoming more frequent because of them. Insurance has gone up A LOT for everyone, regardless of insurer, and for me despite installing hail resistant shingles last time. I am wondering what happens when people here can no longer afford insurance even though these are not luxury second homes. My agent told me that Texas and Oklahoma are becoming the most expensive states to insure.

bushbaba 3y ago
one solution is to exclude hail damage to roofs from basic home insurance policy. Similar to how earthquake and flooding is a separate policy.
- tfandango 3y ago
  It would likely be required by mortgage companies because a new roof is 20-30k on the low end. Otherwise the risk of losing their investment is quite high.
mechagodzilla 3y ago
It's more that those states are becoming the most expensive to maintain intact houses in, with the increased insurance a side effect of that. I know someone in TX that has needed a new roof like 6-7 times in 10 years because of hail damage - the insurance company has been bleeding money on their house for a decade, but that's because the house has actually been sustaining significant damage every single year. The only answers to that over any length of time must be: 1) improve roofing so that they're not sustaining damage so frequently (even if it increases costs), 2) decrease the value of housing so much that replacing the roof out-of-pocket every year just becomes 'cost of doing business', or 3) stop living there because it's just intrinsically expensive. "Pay $1k yearly insurance and average $10k yearly damage" for a whole region is not going to last much longer.
- tfandango 3y ago
  I think I am paying 3500/year now, up from 2800. My house is on the larger side (4 bedrooms), so far, I've had 2 roofs (one on my prior smaller house) in 20+ years. For me it's been 1 roof every 10 years. But I know someone who got a roof replaced and it was immediately destroyed again by a second storm. I on the other hand, fought with State Farm for 6 months about some dumb piece of metal that was dented. So, while we got hit by the second storm and likely sustained more damage, it didn't matter. It's becoming more difficult to find a place to live that does not have some potential issue, be it water, weather, heat, cold, earthquakes.... supervolcanos :)
- toddmorey 3y ago
  At that point, wouldn't a standing seam metal roof be the best investment? The cost is about 3x, but beats an annual roof replacement.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    I've wondered the same about storm damage in Florida. There has to be a better option than shingles, even really high quality shingles.
    - seanharper 3y ago
      +1 for metal roofs -- I run an insurance company that specializes in high risk areas. Metal roofs are a superior technology to shingles and tiles.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      Metal roofs last 3x longer but cost 7x more. Depending on climate there’s some other options too.
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        Metal roofs last 3x longer but cost 7x more. ... in a non-hurricane zone, right? Sounds like some of these coastal areas are on a ~5 year roof replacement cycle. Up here in DC, shingles last for 30+.
JSeymourATL 3y ago
Upvote for HNers in Oklahoma!
- tfandango 3y ago
  ha one for you too then!

jarym 3y ago

This is such an American reply and one that as a European, I find mildly amusing. Where do you live that’s so safe and disasters are uncommon and aren’t on the increase? Everywhere will have different risk factors, the American attitude seems to be ‘I won’t pay for anyone else, even if it means I ultimately will have to pay more’.

ejb999 3y ago
There are some kind of risks everywhere, but denying the fact the some places are dramatically more risky kind of misses the point. Where I live, hardly any disasters - tornado about every 100 years, last time there was huge wildfires was just after WWII, zero risk of flooding - biggest 'risk' I have is being snowed in for a few days as I dig out - there are plenty of places that have a much lower risk profile - and people like me, that pick where we live based in part on the risk, shouldn't have to pay extra insurance to cover people who willing choose to live in low-lying, flood prone areas.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
Remind me again what part of Europe predictably and regularly receives 160 kmh winds at the same time as 3 meter floods? Are you allowed to build wooden houses along the beach there? If you build your house in an area like that and fail to build any sort of protection for expected conditions, why in the world should your losses be subsidized by everyone else? When the cost of insurance for your beach house is too high, that is a signal that you are at extreme risk, not a signal that you should pass a law to make the rest of the country pay for the portion of the risk that you can’t afford.
Analemma_ 3y ago
The point is that "insurance at market prices" should be considered part of the all-in cost of the house, and that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't have that house. Surely even as a European you agree that if you can't pay $10 million for a house on the French Riviera, then you don't get to have a house on the French Riviera; once you conceptually include insurance into the total cost of the house, the exact same logic applies.