×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?
15

Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
I am making some assumptions here, so please let me know if I am off-base with them.
It is my understanding that most residential homes are not engineered, but are simply built using the prescriptive requirements of IBC/IRC.
It is also my understanding that in hurricane-prone regions an exceptionally high percentage of damage to structures is to residential structures.  
If this is true, I can only imagine it is becuase these structures aren't engineered.  These areas (hurricane-prone) seem to have some of the highest homeowner's insurance rates in the country.
Would requiring homes to be engineered cause a reduction in premiums due to the fact that the homes would be less likely to sustain heavy damage during such an event?
Just a thought, any opinions?

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

2
I would imagine so, I think this is a good thing for the local structural engineers association to lobby.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

6
Slippery slope, guys.  Slippery slope.  If the insurance lobby got that kind of legislation passed (and they would push it, even if they never lowered rates afterward), they'd use that as a foot in the door to lobby for all houses to be engineered.  Constructing a house is too much trouble/expense as it is - involving an engineer and the associated "officials" to oversee them would just add to the headache.  I'd rather see construction laws/rules come off the books and codes loosened rather than add to them.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
Pat-
Would you have a house be built to no standards whatsoever?

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

In some cases, why not?

My great-great-great gandfather built a house here in Florida on land he homesteaded.  The house is still in the family.  In the past five years, it has survived 3 hurricanes with only superficial damage.  It wasn't built to any code.

My major gripe is the one-size-fits-all approach that code writers take.  They find some extreme case and then set the code to cover that case when it is a non-issue for the majority of the people.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of houses in this country that weren't built to any code - and they still function just fine.  The house I live in was built in 1947 - it wasn't built to any code.  This building where my office is located was built in 1927 - again not built to code.  Codes can be a good thing, but don't forget that civilation got by just fine for thousands of years without them.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Typical engineering fees for a house are in the 2 to 6k range, I would consider that a small price to pay for life safety.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
Pat-
I am sure there are plenty of great homes out there that were not built to any code and are built well.  That being said, your grandfather built that house for himself.  Do you think the same quality of workmanship would have been put into it if someone else built it for him?  Probably not.  Most people don't build their own homes.
If you don't have some sort of code/standard you could buy a house that will leave the waterbed you just decided to put in crashing down on your brand new plasma screen t.v.
As csd points out, the typical cost for engineering a home is relatively small compared to the price of the house.
I know if I were to ever have a house built, I would certainly engineer it.
I'm just saying that if builders aren't held to some standard then you never know what you will be getting in a house.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

That's just it - there is no "life safety" involved - especially with a hurricane which gives more than ample notice of its approach.  There could be a loss of property - but that's no reason to require that an engineer be consulted.  If some want to - great, but it shouldn't be codified so that everyone has to do it.

Used to be when you owned a piece of property, you could do what you wanted with it.  It was called "property owner's rights" or more simply, "freedom".  Now, as we inch closer to a full time nanny state, we have people who want to dictate that we spend more of our hard earned money and then tell us it's for our own good - for our "safety".  Between codes and laws, in some areas, about the only thing a property owner can do without having to apply for a permit is pay his taxes.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Home builders are held to a standard.  You're suggesting increasing that standard to which the houses must be built.  Sure, it's safer for the occupants, but is the added cost worth it?

I saw a program a few years ago about safety devices for circular saws that would sense when they were cutting through "soft tissue," like a finger, and immediately stop the blade.  They had a demonstration where the saw was running, and someone tried to put a carrot on the blade.  The blade stopped and did not cut the carrot.  This feature would only have added $5 or $10 to the cost of the saw.  However, neither the consumers or the manufacturers wanted it.  Millions of people use circular saws each year, but how many of them lose a finger?  The risk was worth it.

Similarly, the risk of a house being damaged in a hurricane or tornado is low enough to many that they would rather not have a house engineered.  Why repair a system that isn't broken?

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

StructuralEIT,

When I build a new home, I'll engineer it, too.  But I won't do it because I "have to" or because I'm afraid for my safety.  I'll do it because I'm an engineering geek and it'll be kinda fun.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
I was only talking about engineering homes in hurricane prone regions.  Additionally, the point I was getting at was that in addition to not having to rebuild a house, the savings in home insurance could very offset the increased cost of engineering the home in a few short years.
That, to me, seems economically smart.
Maybe instead of requiring all homes to be engineered, the insurance companies could give a rebate (similar to my 20% discount for having an alarm system) if your home has been engineered.  That would encourage people to do it, but not require it.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
Oh, the comment I made about no standards was in response to Pat's comment that he would like to see the code for homebuilding "loosened".  It is already pretty loose, IMO, with only prescriptive requirements.  

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

r.e:

"That's just it - there is no "life safety" involved - especially with a hurricane which gives more than ample notice of its approach."

"Why repair a system that isn't broken?"

Two words that bely these statements - New Orleans.

Pat,

What would you think if family cars were exempt from engineering standards.


nutte,

r.e."You're suggesting increasing that standard to which the houses must be built."
No one is suggesting increasing the standard, only the level of compliance with the code.



RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

I have no desire to have engineers design houses but would much rather get the prescriptive codes updated to be more in line with current engineering practices and standards. This would go a long way in solving these problems.

Home builders and construction suppliers lobby against these changes but I am sure insurance companies would be for it.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Pat, If codes and/or standards were relaxed or made "optional" for one's "personal property" would you agree that the insurance companies should not have to pay for such structures that fail, or that the federal gov't should not have to pay $billions for a bail-out?

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

csd72:  Hurricane Katrina was a once in a generation or so storm that also destroyed a lot of commercial (that is, engineered) buildings.  Much of the damage was caused by the failure of the levees.  I don't think the comparison is fair.

Even if it is, are you suggesting that we build all houses in hurricane prone regions to resist a storm of this magnitude?  I doubt that $2000-$6000 estimate would apply in this case.  At some point, it becomes prohibitively expensive to design against certain failures.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

You're mostly there, JKW05.  If an insurance comapany agrees to insure your structure, they should have to pay - assuming you've paid your premiums, etc.  But, an insurance company doesn't have to grant an insurance policy (or they shouldn't have to).

And under no circumstances (unless they are at fault - i.e., they dropped a bomb on your house or something) should the government pay to "bail out" home (and business) owners when a structure fails.  At some point an individual has to take some personal responsibility and become accountable.  If you choose to build/live in a hurricane prone area, Uncle Sam shouldn't have to pony the bill if a storm takes your house out.  If you want the "reward" of living on the coast, you should assume the risk as well.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

I do not believe that it should be required. A personal home, with a low importance value (per code) should not be required to be designed to stand up to an event such as Hurricane Katrina. If you look at the statistical probablity of the extreme events and the importance value of a house it appears that designing for that event is not pratical. So, I do not think that it should be required. However, if an insurance company wants to reduce the premium for a house that has been engineered, I am all for that. But it should not be required.
I have a question, when a house that it engineered goes down in a natural event. Who's butt is on the line. Is it the engineers? The contractors (who you could not prove did something wrong because the house is destroyed)? Or does the insurance just pay out the value of the house, with out going after someone (not likley).

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
Pat-
What you are suggesting would put the insurance companies in a position to be able to charge everyone higher rates.  If a builder were not required to build to any kind of standard, how in the world could the insurance company have ANY confidence in insuring any house?  They would insure the houses and as they fail, one by one, the insurance rates will go up for all houses because they can't be sure who's home is engineered, or built to prescriptive requirements, or just thrown together.  I guess the engineered home could provide bills from teh engineerto show it was engineered, but the guys in the middle (homes built by prescriptive requirements) would be charged the same as the guys who had their house just "put together".
That seems utterly crazy to me.
Not to mention a bit of personal responsibility for people who are not in your family that visit the home or your neighbor who doesn't want their engineered house damaged when your house that was just slapped together has the roof ripped off.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Pat, Your reasoning seems consistent, and I agree with you for the most part.  Unfortunately the politicians seem to enjoy pandering by giving our money away to those individuals who don't want to take personal responsibility. My brother lives in CA and has told me that a lot of people won't by EQ insurance because it's too expensive. But sure enough following an EQ, they are crying for FEMA to give them money.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Texas has a program for counties along the coast called windstorm insurance (for hurricanes).  To get the insurance, the house has to be inspected by an engineer who fills out some forms.  The inspection is paid for by the homeowner who can shop around for inspectors.  Without the inspection, they can't get the insurance.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

In my experience, a well engineered structure does not necessarily cost any more money, it is just that that money is spent on the areas where it does the most good.

Sometimes it does cost more, but that is why an engineer is justified, because we can tell the difference of when it is necessary and when it is not.

Looking at the bigger picture, surely the cost to society (and the environment) is larger if we are continually replacing these buildings rather than building them to last. Not to mention the social cost of having whole suburbs wiped out and populations displaced.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

How can a code, a contractor or a code inspector assure anyone of an economical and structurally sound home? I would think there is only one professional that can offer this kind of assurance and that’s an experienced structural engineer working in conjunction with the other 3.

I like WmacG home state answer, if it’s in a special zone (wind, heavy snow, earthquake) the only way that property is insurable is to have a structural review either up front on new homes or after the fact on existing homes.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Yes but with existing homes, how do you inspect the structure when it is all covered up? It only takes one crucial tie down to be missing to compromise the whole structure.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Quote (StructuralEIT):

...in hurricane-prone regions an exceptionally high percentage of damage to structures is to residential structures.  If this is true, I can only imagine it is becuase these structures aren't engineered.  These areas (hurricane-prone) seem to have some of the highest homeowner's insurance rates in the country.

I think there is some misunderstanding in the basic argument here.  The quote above assumes that the insurance claims filed in these hurricane prone areas are for structural failures of non-engineered residential homes.

Most of these claims are for damages such as missing shingles, broken windows, damaged siding, water damage (including mold) etc.  I would hazard a guess that except for the largest hurricanes, the majority of the insurance claims are for flooding and "non-structural" repairs.  Requiring a structural engineer will not reduce these claims.  However, spending more money for commercial quality roofing, siding etc on residential structures might.  Tightening up building codes to require these more durable building materials is one way to achieve this goal.  And insurance companies already do evaluate home construction and base the premium rates on they type of construction.  For instance, in California - you will have a difficult time insuring a home with a cedar shake roof.  However, all the new homes are built with clay tile roofs and most with stucco siding which significantly reduces the danger from wildfire.  Also, building codes and real estate laws require seismic anchoring of the building to the foundation which greatly increases the safety of the home during an earthquake.  

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Looking at the bigger picture, surely the cost to society (and the environment) is larger if we are continually replacing these buildings rather than building them to last.

Really?  Is that what we're doing?  Or are we talking about a very very small percentage of all houses built?  Keep some perspective.

You know, while we're at it we should go ahead and require that an ME design all the HVAC systems in residential use - you know, because the potential energy savings will benefit society (and the environment).  We should probably get an EE involved, too - wouldn't want an electrical contractor or home owner to accidently size the wrong size breaker or wire - the public's safety is at risk - there could be a fire.  Fire - we should get an engineer to design a fire suppression system for each new residence being built - you can never be too safe.  While we're at it, we should probably get a civil engineer involved with designing a storm water facility for each new residence - wouldn't want the runoff to leave the property, you know - bad for the environment.  After all - an engineer's fee is so small, the new homeowner will never notice these new requirements- and he'll probably thank us, too - afterall, it is for his own good.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

That post deserves a star.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Where I live, there are a large number of houses constructed that are not engineered.  Many of the homes are constructed by people who are not really qualified to be a contractor. There are no licensing laws in this state regarding who can and who cannot be a contractor (except for plumbing and electrical work).  There are framers building homes who just "graduated" from a vo-tech program and who are building large custom homes without any experienced framers supervising their work.  There are alot of GC's building homes who decided that accounting (or whatever their previous job happened to be) was not fun and thought building custom homes was an easy and lucrative way to make a living.  A large number of homes are inspected by structural engineers looking at foundation and framing problems caused by poor construction practices.  Sometimes, the city framing inspector will contact me and require that I review something suspicious.  More often than not, there is a problem that the contractor must pay me to help him/her solve before the city official will approve the framing.  I do not know if having the homes engineered would have prevented any of the problems that I have looked at personally, but at least the homeowners would likely have been made aware of potential problems BEFORE the homes were constructed, not several months AFTER they moved into the homes.  I believe a great number of the problems would not have occurred if contractors were more knowledgable about site preparation (don't just scrape the grass away), foundation construction, expansive soils, framing configurations that do not fall within the prescriptive requirements of the IRC.  Insurance claims were made and paid for all of the problems that I inspected after the home was constructed and the owners move into the house.  

Pat has a point:  some people can build a good home without following any codes and still have a quality home.  I encounter many people with the attitude that engineers and architects are not needed because "man" has been building shelters since the day when Ugh piled several sticks together to make a simple hut.  It is my opinion that most people, contractors and homeowners alike, are not knowledgable enough to build without codes and guidance.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

Pat,

We are talking about doing this in the areas that are most at risk, not just everywhere. I agree that having engineers involved in houses for low wind/seismic regions is a waste of time, but in many of these regions hurricanes can/and will happen.

It takes a lot of 5k amounts to equal the tens of millions spent on wind damaged houses in events like katrina (even ignoring the effects of the levees).

Anyway you seem to be very opinionated on this for a mechanical engineer.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
csd-
I would give you a second star if I could.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

I agree with nutte...I'm giving Pat another star for that last post, as well.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

(OP)
This post was really not intended to debate the merits of engineering houses.  It was meant to get opinions on whether engineering houses (in hurricane prone regions) could be used to reduce homeowner's insurance rates.
Again, it is my impression that the greatest damage (structural or otherwise) is done to residential homes.  I don't think it is a coincidence that these happen to be the structures that are not engineered.
There was actually an article in STRUCTURE Magazine some time ago about the differences in damage in high-wind regions between commercial (engineered) and residential (non-engineered) structures.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

The insurance agency, after Hurricane Andrew, started to rate building departments similar to how they rate fire departments.  I understand these ratings are used by insurance companies to set rates.  The better departments are requiring calculations or seals and you are seeing more and more seals on residential projects.  This is certainly true in central Ohio.


Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

2
No amount of engineering will compensate for a contractor who ignores them or an inspector who enforces nothing.  We are doing fine on the design side.  I suggest we enforce the rules we have rather than make new ones.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

UcfSE,
As an engineer who has done his share of neighborhoods, I'll have to say amen to that brother.  

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

UcfSE,
Agreed 100%.  Therein lines the real problem.      

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

The hurricane regions such as Florida have prescriptive codes that substitute for Engineered Buildings.  The impact rules and tie-down rules are substancial and much improved over previous codes.  The insurance companies are on board with the improved codes and give breaks in rates for new construction.

RE: Could Engineering Houses Affect Insurance?

A note on grandpa's house and the others that are still standing after umpteen years - Bravo!  Good for them!  They did it right.  Have you counted all of those other houses built by old timers that didn't make it due to some failure, whether it be foundation, framing, an act of God or whatever?  I bet there's MANY more of those.  Codes try and take what ol' Granpappy did right and help everybody else out that didn't know how to build their own house.

As for Florida's codes and how it pans out for insurance companies - here's the road map:

1.  Florida has passed very tough codes for new construction.  They are, by law, supposed to be followed.
2.  An inspection is required by an official prior to occupancy.
3.  They won't sell you a policy on a new house that doesn't pass inspection.

Where does that leave us?  ENFORCEMENT - yes, I agree with several of the recent posts on this point.  There is no discount for insurance if they're built this way, it's a requirement to get the insurance in the first place!

Jim Delahey (bless his departed soul - I was lucky enough to meet him) and many other very knowledgeable engineers had a hand in shaping the Florida codes.  In my mind EVERY new house in Florida, if built strictly to code, is a de facto engineered home when it comes to hurricane winds.

The Katrina situation is entirely different and really doesn't belong in this discussion.  However, since it came up, I'll pipe in some more confusion:  The VAST majority of the dollar value damage of Katrina occurred after the winds had died down and it was just a blustery drizzle.  Why?  Levees, that had nothing to do with engineering houses, gave way.  Most of the houses that were destroyed were over 50 years old and had weathered many hurricanes (including Betsy, Camille and Andrew - all stronger than Katrina wind-wise), but couldn't hold up against the floods.

As a side note, we've got a designer here in our office from New Orleans that had 3' of water in his house - in the SECOND FLOOR!!



If you "heard" it on the internet, it's guilty until proven innocent. - DCS

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources