I am betting, the natural disaster rate has a major impact for the band of states in middle of the country and south east being in either hurricane zones or tornado alley.
So this chart can be a little misleading as it’s insurance premium as a percentage of property values (land + structure) not insurable value (structure + contents).
It’s effectively a blend between what areas are high/low risk and what areas have expensive land vs structure.
Like Oklahoma is super high both because it’s high risk (tornado and hail) but also because land is cheaper so the “property values” are a better proxy for insurance limits. it also has a lot of aging housing stock, so property values might even be below the cost to replace in a claim (you effectively have to insur over 100% of the property value to get a loan).
Compare this to say Florida or California which is also high risk, but has much more expensive land so the rate is less of a proxy for insured value.
I still think it’s probably roughly correct, but with some funky distortions here and there.
Florida is part natural disaster, part roofing insurance scam
3 comments
I am betting, the natural disaster rate has a major impact for the band of states in middle of the country and south east being in either hurricane zones or tornado alley.
So this chart can be a little misleading as it’s insurance premium as a percentage of property values (land + structure) not insurable value (structure + contents).
It’s effectively a blend between what areas are high/low risk and what areas have expensive land vs structure.
Like Oklahoma is super high both because it’s high risk (tornado and hail) but also because land is cheaper so the “property values” are a better proxy for insurance limits. it also has a lot of aging housing stock, so property values might even be below the cost to replace in a claim (you effectively have to insur over 100% of the property value to get a loan).
Compare this to say Florida or California which is also high risk, but has much more expensive land so the rate is less of a proxy for insured value.
I still think it’s probably roughly correct, but with some funky distortions here and there.
Florida is part natural disaster, part roofing insurance scam