Harry Everhart wrote:
In article ,
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Maybe not for you specifically, but certainly for some it will be (and
can be a major cost differential). As in virtually everything, to
generalize from a particular case is, in general, wrong...


It is better to cite examples - rather than to generalize off the top of
your head without any facts at all to back it up :-)

30 years of buying insurance for a cedar shake roof home and not paying
extra premium for it - certainly backs up my claim :-)

Using fabled insurance cost as a reason not to use cedar shakes - is
similar to someone not buying a Porsche because they can't afford it and
blaming it on insurance. Yes - cedar shakes cost much more - because the
materials are hard to mass produce and it takes a lot of labor to
install them. But if you like cedar shakes - go for it - I can think of
tons of worse ways to waste your money.

As someone once said - if you need excuses other than intrinsic values -
to buy or not buy something - you should not buy it. And then everyone
will have homes with white aluminum siding and asphalt roofs with tan
Toyota Corolla's in the garage. :-)

Harry

Harry
Combustible wood roofing is forbidden by law in some portions of the
country. In areas prone to wildland or interface fires there is a very
steep difference in the cost of insurance for a home with a combustible
roof. In many areas of the portion of the country that has a
Mediterranean climate a home must have a roof with a class three or
lower ignition resistance rating to be insured at a normal rate. Even a
non combustible roofing that is unrated will cause the rate on home
insurance to be markedly higher in western wildland urban interface
zones. This is because the testing is conducted on roofing that is
installed as designed and to past it must resist ignition of the
underlying structure as well as the roofing itself. Your one roof is
just too small a sample of the effect of roofing material on the
insurability of a home.
--
Tom H