Is it cheaper to insure a home built in 1984 or 1993?

The reason I ask is, my home was built in '84 but my policy says it was

built in '93.


There is a discount for "age of dwelling". Is this discount because the

home is considered a newer home (1993) or is this discount because it's

considered an older home (1993)?


Will my insurance be less if I call and correct the problem?


I need all the help I can get, I'm in Florida and they have just
DOUBLED the premium AND the deductible even though I have never had a
claim.

writes:
Is it cheaper to insure a home built in 1984 or 1993?

The reason I ask is, my home was built in '84 but my policy says it was

built in '93.


There is a discount for "age of dwelling". Is this discount because the

home is considered a newer home (1993) or is this discount because it's

considered an older home (1993)?


Will my insurance be less if I call and correct the problem?

I need all the help I can get, I'm in Florida and they have just
DOUBLED the premium AND the deductible even though I have never had a
claim.

Yikes.

I don't know for certain, but there's another angle you haven't
considered: eliminating any errors that might cause you problems in
getting a claim when it comes time to do so.

I can't imagine any risk factors that'd differentiate a 13 year old
home from a 22 year old home. In both cases, you have at least one
opportunity for a water heater to have rusted out and flooded the
place, or washer hoses to have burst, so the risk would have levelled
out you'd think.

These are educated guesses based on what insurance companies actually
care about: risk profiles.

Perhaps someone in the insurance industry is lurking though.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

wrote in message
oups.com...
Is it cheaper to insure a home built in 1984 or 1993?

The reason I ask is, my home was built in '84 but my policy says it was

built in '93.


There is a discount for "age of dwelling". Is this discount because the

home is considered a newer home (1993) or is this discount because it's

considered an older home (1993)?


Will my insurance be less if I call and correct the problem?


I need all the help I can get, I'm in Florida and they have just
DOUBLED the premium AND the deductible even though I have never had a
claim.


In Florida (I live in Boynton Beach) they are only interested if the house
was built after 1994. That's the year the new hurricane codes kicked in such
as hurricane shutters, roof straps, etc. What insurance company are you
with?

JerryL wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Is it cheaper to insure a home built in 1984 or 1993?

The reason I ask is, my home was built in '84 but my policy says it was

built in '93.


There is a discount for "age of dwelling". Is this discount because the

home is considered a newer home (1993) or is this discount because it's

considered an older home (1993)?


Will my insurance be less if I call and correct the problem?


I need all the help I can get, I'm in Florida and they have just
DOUBLED the premium AND the deductible even though I have never had a
claim.


In Florida (I live in Boynton Beach) they are only interested if the house
was built after 1994. That's the year the new hurricane codes kicked in such
as hurricane shutters, roof straps, etc. What insurance company are you
with?

I'm currently (until next month) with a company called ASI, which was
written thru Florida Chartered Ins Group Inc, but they're "limiting
their catastrophe coverage" so I've been shopping around.

I was paying $475 a yr with a regular deductible of $500 and the
hurricane deductible was also $500. So far I've got quotes from $1200
to $724 a yr all with $1000 deductibles and a 2% hurricane deductible.

Yesterday I received a letter from Fl Chartered Ins Group Inc offering
me insurance from a company called St. Johns.

The premium will be $640, with deductibles of $1000 and 2% . This is
the company that has my house listed as being built in '93.

Considering all of the other quotes that I've got so far, I'm pretty
sure I'm going with them. That's why I was wondering about the yr that
was listed. But, what you say about the building codes makes perfect
sense, so apparently it won't make any difference.

I'm in Orlando and the only houses that were damaged in my area in
2004, were from big oak trees falling over and that wasn't many. The
hurricanes that came thru my area were down to a Cat 1 by time they got
here.

Still, these friggin insurance companies are either puling out from
this area, aren't writing new policies, or as seen above, charging ppl
out the ass for coverage.

They make money for YRS and then when they have a couple of bad ones,
it's goodbye. Even in an area that didn't have that much damage.

I own 3 cars of which only 1 was in the garage and they didn't even get
any damage!

In Florida (I live in Boynton Beach) they are only interested if the
house
was built after 1994. That's the year the new hurricane codes kicked in
such
as hurricane shutters, roof straps, etc. What insurance company are you
with?

I'm currently (until next month) with a company called ASI, which was
written thru Florida Chartered Ins Group Inc, but they're "limiting
their catastrophe coverage" so I've been shopping around.

I was paying $475 a yr with a regular deductible of $500 and the
hurricane deductible was also $500. So far I've got quotes from $1200
to $724 a yr all with $1000 deductibles and a 2% hurricane deductible.

Yesterday I received a letter from Fl Chartered Ins Group Inc offering
me insurance from a company called St. Johns.

The premium will be $640, with deductibles of $1000 and 2% . This is
the company that has my house listed as being built in '93.

Considering all of the other quotes that I've got so far, I'm pretty
sure I'm going with them. That's why I was wondering about the yr that
was listed. But, what you say about the building codes makes perfect
sense, so apparently it won't make any difference.

I'm in Orlando and the only houses that were damaged in my area in
2004, were from big oak trees falling over and that wasn't many. The
hurricanes that came thru my area were down to a Cat 1 by time they got
here.

Still, these friggin insurance companies are either puling out from
this area, aren't writing new policies, or as seen above, charging ppl
out the ass for coverage.

They make money for YRS and then when they have a couple of bad ones,
it's goodbye. Even in an area that didn't have that much damage.

I own 3 cars of which only 1 was in the garage and they didn't even get
any damage!

You're lucky you are not in what is considered the hurricane zone. Many
people here have a $10000 deductible on their hurricane insurance (yes I
said 10K). Up till last hurricane season Central Florida got away with
fairly cheap rates but now the insurance companies are going bananas looking
to see who and how many more they can screw. Citizens Insurance, which is
the insurer of last resort if you can't get insurance elsewhere charges in
the mid 2000's for hurricane insurance with a 5% of your homes value for a
deductible. If your house is worth 300K, your deductible is 15000. Plus,
Citizen paid out too much money last year so Jeb Bush, in his mercy for the
wealthy has authorized all the insurance companies to add a 10 percent
surcharge to help Citizen out of their financial woes. Yeah, right. These
insurance companies priced me right out of Florida and I have my house up
for sale now.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:23:12 -0500, someone wrote:

Citizen paid out too much money last year so Jeb Bush, in his mercy for the
wealthy has authorized all the insurance companies to add a 10 percent
surcharge to help Citizen out of their financial woes... Yeah, right. These
insurance companies priced me right out of Florida a

Hmm, about to become a political thread, I see.

If a Democrat was Governor, the would not have been hurricanes, or
they would have done less damage?

If a Democrat was Governor, Citizens would have been able to fix the
damage for free?

If a Democrat was Governor, the Tooth Fairy would have come up with
the extra money so that nobody would have been charged anything?

Who do you WANT to pay to protect YOUR property?


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

"v" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:23:12 -0500, someone wrote:

Citizen paid out too much money last year so Jeb Bush, in his mercy for
the
wealthy has authorized all the insurance companies to add a 10 percent
surcharge to help Citizen out of their financial woes... Yeah, right.
These
insurance companies priced me right out of Florida a

Hmm, about to become a political thread, I see.

If a Democrat was Governor, the would not have been hurricanes, or
they would have done less damage?

If a Democrat was Governor, Citizens would have been able to fix the
damage for free?

If a Democrat was Governor, the Tooth Fairy would have come up with
the extra money so that nobody would have been charged anything?

Who do you WANT to pay to protect YOUR property?

I and my insurance company pay for my property damage. If MY insurance
company is losing money and wants to surcharge it's own customers to make up
the excess they paid out, that's one thing. But when another insurance
company that I am not affiliated with has a loss, why should I have to pay a
surcharge? Secondly, most of the insured in Citizens are people that other
insurance companies don't want. Why? Houses on the ocean. Why should I help
bail out a company that is insuring multi-million dollar homes on the beach?
Let them raise the home-owners rates that are their customers. Political?
Damn right.

"JerryL" wrote in message
...

"v" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:23:12 -0500, someone wrote:

Citizen paid out too much money last year so Jeb Bush, in his mercy for
the
wealthy has authorized all the insurance companies to add a 10 percent
surcharge to help Citizen out of their financial woes... Yeah, right.
These
insurance companies priced me right out of Florida a

Hmm, about to become a political thread, I see.

If a Democrat was Governor, the would not have been hurricanes, or
they would have done less damage?

If a Democrat was Governor, Citizens would have been able to fix the
damage for free?

If a Democrat was Governor, the Tooth Fairy would have come up with
the extra money so that nobody would have been charged anything?

Who do you WANT to pay to protect YOUR property?

I and my insurance company pay for my property damage. If MY insurance
company is losing money and wants to surcharge it's own customers to make
up the excess they paid out, that's one thing. But when another insurance
company that I am not affiliated with has a loss, why should I have to pay
a surcharge? Secondly, most of the insured in Citizens are people that
other insurance companies don't want. Why? Houses on the ocean. Why should
I help bail out a company that is insuring multi-million dollar homes on
the beach? Let them raise the home-owners rates that are their customers.
Political? Damn right.

An addition to the above. Six years ago the Federal government gave Florida
money to distribute to homeowners so that they can buy hurricance shutters.
The State was told to administer the funds and also added money to what the
Federal government gave. Guess what the guidelines Jeb Bush put out for
these free handouts? In order to qualify, your home must be East of A1A.
Guess what East of A1A is? Only the homes along the beach. Again,
multimillion dollar homes that the owners could afford to pay for their own
shutters. Several blocks further West are homes owned by working and lower
class homeowners that really could have used this help but didn't get it.
Political? Very damn right.