could engineering houses affect insurance

huangyhg

could engineering houses affect insurance?
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?
i would imagine so, i think this is a good thing for the local structural engineers association to lobby.
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.
pat-
would you have a house be built to no standards whatsoever?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.