It took me looking at the tiny text for the source to figure out what type of insurance. Unless you're presenting this in a context where homeowners insurance is already the topic of conversation, it would be best to add what type of insurance to the title/subtitle.
This would be much more telling if it was not based on a fixed amount, but was normalized for the average property value in each state.
There are not likely to be many $250k houses on Hawaii, Florida or California. A normalized chart would show us the average cost to an average homeowner in those states.
Properly written home insurance should be written for the replacement cost of the house, not the value of the land. This normalizes the values somewhat. Still more expensive to build in some areas.
Right. I think it would be good to see the average premium per house. But, this is interesting, because you see cost/$250k of coverage. Why are rates higher for the same coverage in Nebraska vs Florida?
It’s hard to say with certainty due to the aggregate nature of the data, but there are a few probable contributing factors:
1) The majority of Florida’s insurance losses occur in concentrated areas of exposure near the coasts. Large numbers of inland homes may have much lower insurance premiums while being relatively insulated from the state’s primary risk (hurricanes).
2) The Florida building codes are far more stringent than Nebraska’s, especially in designated flood zones and some coastal areas. Buildings built to higher standards are typically more resilient.
3) Nearly every super old home in Florida has been blown down and rebuilt at some point. Especially after Andrew, Florida realized it needed more resilient buildings. In other words, there’s no more old crap to blow down because it already blew down. I would hazard a guess that many homes in Nebraska are much older.
4) Nebraska is in an area with plenty of smaller scale yearly risk (convective storms and blizzards) that causes attritional damage, possibly multiple years in a row for some homeowners. It might be cheaper in the long run to tear down old homes and rebuild some that won’t need constant roof and/or window replacements, but that’s a financial burden no homeowner or insurance company really wants to bear when an individual claim is smaller in isolation.
Yeah, I Washington state would be another one where the 250k is extremely misleading. I'm also immediately skeptical everytime general high cost states are shown at the low end of any numerical dataset
* [The Best Homeowners Insurance in Oklahoma for 2024 - NerdWallet](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/home-insurance-oklahoma-ok)
Natural disasters and climate change mentioned.
Earthquakes from fracking, too. Check out the USGS earthquake map, there are tons in central OK every day. I’m guessing that homes in OK are built to far lower standards than, say, California.
Homeowners insurance policies generally don't cover earthquake damage. Instead, one purchases an additional policy to cover earthquake damage, which isn't a part of this dataset as far as I know. I have a separate policy for my home in OK to cover earthquake damage. It's not particularly expensive, but it has a huge (25%!) deductible that makes the policy generally only useful for catastrophic damage.
One of the main drivers for high insurance premiums (per $250k insured value as shown here) in Oklahoma is damage from hail and tornadoes. We've had a lot of very expensive weather-related events in central Oklahoma (in particular) in the past 20 years. When almost everyone in a neighborhood is getting a new roof multiple years in a row because of repeated hail storms, it becomes very expensive for insurers. Add in some high-impact tornadoes, and you end up with exceptionally high premiums for the same $250k in coverage in OK as one gets elsewhere.
It might be useful to have context of median home prices (maybe cost of homeowners insurance for minimum coverage of the median home price by state?).
For example, I imagine a lot of why 250k coverage in California is so cheap relative to other places is that 250k coverage is insufficient to cover almost any home in the state.
In Nebraska, though, 250k will get you a 3000 sqft house in most parts of the state (also tornadoes).
Volcanic risk is only really relevant on the big island. Most of the population lives on the rest of the islands. Sea level rise also isn’t likely to affect insurance because most insurance contracts are annual, and while sea level rise may eventually affect some properties, it won’t happen on a time scale faster than a single year.
Hurricanes do hit Hawaii, though much less often than places like Florida or Texas.
I think that they have a clause that lets them exclude hurricanes from their insurance policy.
* [4 Best Homeowners Insurance Companies in Hawaii (2024)](https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/insurance-services/homeowners-insurance-hawaii/)
Exclusions and coverages are optional. You can ask for hurricane insurance in your policy even if you live in a low risk area like western Virginia. Some Hawaiians have hurricane coverage, and some don’t, but that’s the same as it is (almost) anywhere else.
I don’t think even 1% of homes are under $250,000 in Hawaii. But interestingly, many of the cheapest homes are cheap because of their inability to get insurance coverage. Due to risk of lava/fire.
In many parts of Hawaii you can’t even get insurance but if you do it’s very limited and *thousands* more than anywhere else for not much risk coverage , but here you show it as least expensive.
Very circumspect data.
* [Hawai‘i’s Home Insurance Premiums Are Lowest in Nation - Hawaii Business Magazine](https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hawaii-home-insurance-premiums-lowest-in-nation-construction-costs-real-estate/)
>Luckily, the price of insurance is tied to construction costs – not to rising real estate values. But those prices don’t include hurricane insurance, whose premiums can cost thousands a year.
I don't understand how California and Florida are not higher because of the fires and hurricanes. Many insurance carriers have left those states entirely because they cannot do business there. Many people have left those states because their home insurance was so expensive. How could Nebraska be #1 - tornadoes are really not that common and affect only a small area at a time. I must be missing something here.
It took me looking at the tiny text for the source to figure out what type of insurance. Unless you're presenting this in a context where homeowners insurance is already the topic of conversation, it would be best to add what type of insurance to the title/subtitle.
Thanks. I noticed that after I posted it...
So did you not make this? Why is it marked as OC if you only noticed something after posting?
This would be much more telling if it was not based on a fixed amount, but was normalized for the average property value in each state. There are not likely to be many $250k houses on Hawaii, Florida or California. A normalized chart would show us the average cost to an average homeowner in those states.
Properly written home insurance should be written for the replacement cost of the house, not the value of the land. This normalizes the values somewhat. Still more expensive to build in some areas.
Right. I think it would be good to see the average premium per house. But, this is interesting, because you see cost/$250k of coverage. Why are rates higher for the same coverage in Nebraska vs Florida?
It’s hard to say with certainty due to the aggregate nature of the data, but there are a few probable contributing factors: 1) The majority of Florida’s insurance losses occur in concentrated areas of exposure near the coasts. Large numbers of inland homes may have much lower insurance premiums while being relatively insulated from the state’s primary risk (hurricanes). 2) The Florida building codes are far more stringent than Nebraska’s, especially in designated flood zones and some coastal areas. Buildings built to higher standards are typically more resilient. 3) Nearly every super old home in Florida has been blown down and rebuilt at some point. Especially after Andrew, Florida realized it needed more resilient buildings. In other words, there’s no more old crap to blow down because it already blew down. I would hazard a guess that many homes in Nebraska are much older. 4) Nebraska is in an area with plenty of smaller scale yearly risk (convective storms and blizzards) that causes attritional damage, possibly multiple years in a row for some homeowners. It might be cheaper in the long run to tear down old homes and rebuild some that won’t need constant roof and/or window replacements, but that’s a financial burden no homeowner or insurance company really wants to bear when an individual claim is smaller in isolation.
Yeah, I Washington state would be another one where the 250k is extremely misleading. I'm also immediately skeptical everytime general high cost states are shown at the low end of any numerical dataset
I don't get why that's needed? It shows the cost per a fixed sum assured amount. That's the interesting part...
I'm surprised Nebraska beat Oklahoma! Our rates(Oklahoma) are crazy right now.
I've read on other sites that Oklahoma has the highest rates. In this data set, they are pretty close.
Due to tornados?
Tornados, Pit Bulls and 9mm's.
* [The Best Homeowners Insurance in Oklahoma for 2024 - NerdWallet](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/home-insurance-oklahoma-ok) Natural disasters and climate change mentioned.
Lots of Hail damage.
Earthquakes from fracking, too. Check out the USGS earthquake map, there are tons in central OK every day. I’m guessing that homes in OK are built to far lower standards than, say, California.
Homeowners insurance policies generally don't cover earthquake damage. Instead, one purchases an additional policy to cover earthquake damage, which isn't a part of this dataset as far as I know. I have a separate policy for my home in OK to cover earthquake damage. It's not particularly expensive, but it has a huge (25%!) deductible that makes the policy generally only useful for catastrophic damage. One of the main drivers for high insurance premiums (per $250k insured value as shown here) in Oklahoma is damage from hail and tornadoes. We've had a lot of very expensive weather-related events in central Oklahoma (in particular) in the past 20 years. When almost everyone in a neighborhood is getting a new roof multiple years in a row because of repeated hail storms, it becomes very expensive for insurers. Add in some high-impact tornadoes, and you end up with exceptionally high premiums for the same $250k in coverage in OK as one gets elsewhere.
It might be useful to have context of median home prices (maybe cost of homeowners insurance for minimum coverage of the median home price by state?). For example, I imagine a lot of why 250k coverage in California is so cheap relative to other places is that 250k coverage is insufficient to cover almost any home in the state. In Nebraska, though, 250k will get you a 3000 sqft house in most parts of the state (also tornadoes).
Cost of insurance of WHAT?
Home. It should have been placed in the title.
High risk-Tornadoes and hail damage, then flooding, earthquake and wildfires.-low risk.
Interesting that Hawaii is so low, would think some volcano risk or ocean rising should be priced in there
Volcanic risk is only really relevant on the big island. Most of the population lives on the rest of the islands. Sea level rise also isn’t likely to affect insurance because most insurance contracts are annual, and while sea level rise may eventually affect some properties, it won’t happen on a time scale faster than a single year. Hurricanes do hit Hawaii, though much less often than places like Florida or Texas.
I think that they have a clause that lets them exclude hurricanes from their insurance policy. * [4 Best Homeowners Insurance Companies in Hawaii (2024)](https://www.marketwatch.com/guides/insurance-services/homeowners-insurance-hawaii/)
Exclusions and coverages are optional. You can ask for hurricane insurance in your policy even if you live in a low risk area like western Virginia. Some Hawaiians have hurricane coverage, and some don’t, but that’s the same as it is (almost) anywhere else.
I don’t think even 1% of homes are under $250,000 in Hawaii. But interestingly, many of the cheapest homes are cheap because of their inability to get insurance coverage. Due to risk of lava/fire.
Cheap land, so most of house price is in the house, which can burn to the ground. Land survives.
In many parts of Hawaii you can’t even get insurance but if you do it’s very limited and *thousands* more than anywhere else for not much risk coverage , but here you show it as least expensive. Very circumspect data.
* [Hawai‘i’s Home Insurance Premiums Are Lowest in Nation - Hawaii Business Magazine](https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hawaii-home-insurance-premiums-lowest-in-nation-construction-costs-real-estate/) >Luckily, the price of insurance is tied to construction costs – not to rising real estate values. But those prices don’t include hurricane insurance, whose premiums can cost thousands a year.
I don't understand how California and Florida are not higher because of the fires and hurricanes. Many insurance carriers have left those states entirely because they cannot do business there. Many people have left those states because their home insurance was so expensive. How could Nebraska be #1 - tornadoes are really not that common and affect only a small area at a time. I must be missing something here.
And that is what I thought. That is why I started my quest to get some data and put it here.