Close this search box.

HOW’S THE MARKET? Flood Insurance during a La Niña

flood insurance

HOW’S THE MARKET? Flood Insurance during a La Niña

After years of drought, many of us are pleased to hear that it may be a wet winter; however, some of us get a little nervous when we hear meteorologists predicting a La Niña year after wildfires, because that can mean flooding and potentially, mudslides.

If you buy a home in a federally designated flood zone with a federally insured lender (and most lenders fall into this category), you are required to purchase flood insurance. Sometimes, property that falls within a designated zone on a map isn’t all that likely to flood, yet the insurance is still required-unless you get a flood certification that pulls your property out of the flood zone.

Flood insurance is expensive ($1,000 to $5,000 a year). If you live on top of the solitary hill in a flood zone, and you don’t want to pay for flood insurance because you really don’t need it, it’ll cost between $500 – $2,000 for a survey to prove it. Surveys are available locally from Ron Franz and George Rau, both civil engineers, who are excellent.

If you drive around Ukiah in the winter, you won’t see much flooding and with today’s mortgage rates, $3,000 per year equates to about $57,000 more in mortgage. So, if the home you’re interested in buying requires flood insurance, you may be better off to pay a little more for a home outside the flood zone than to pay for the “less expensive” home in a flood zone. Of course, if the house in the flood zone is an exceptional value, go for it.

I know an investor who recently got a deal on a foreclosed commercial property when he bought it at auction. He paid $150,000 in cash and then invested another $150,000 to refurbish the place, bringing his full investment to $300,000. At this point, he believed its market value was significantly higher than $300,000, so he was quite pleased with his acquisition. However, when he went to the bank to refinance the property, he discovered that the property was in a flood zone, and the bank required flood insurance. The investor called a local civil engineer to confirm the bank’s assertion that flood insurance was required. The engineer overlaid a FEMA map on top of a Google satellite image of the property to discover that, while some of the property was in a flood plain, the structure was clearly outside the flood zone. The investor’s call to the civil engineer saved him almost $3,000 a year in flood insurance costs.

I’ve mentioned this before, but I have to say that I believe flood insurance rates are outrageous. At $3,000 a year, flood insurance is significantly higher than insurance for similar potential disasters. I really think the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is still making up for Katrina and other devastating hurricanes. Since requiring the folks affected by those disasters to pay appropriate insurance rates isn’t politically palatable, FEMA requires everyone in a flood zone nationwide to pay high prices for flood insurance.

The folks who live in Ukiah’s Oak Manor subdivision know about flooding if they’ve been there for a decade or so. I believe it was an El Niño year when many Oak Manor residents learned about the details of their flood insurance policies. As with any contractual agreement, the large print giveth and the small print taketh away. Read your policy. Some policies include coverage for the basics (structural damage); others include the coverage for a property’s contents. 

Taken from

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related posts


Specific Technologies Driving Insurtech Investment in 2024

Understanding the Funding Decline The decrease in funding does not necessarily spell trouble for the insurance sector but instead highlights a strategic shift, the report suggests. “The insurance industry, like many sectors, is focusing on the most promising ventures with substantial insurance potential,” the report explains. “Insurers are directing their investments toward key areas and current trends such as embedded insurance, employee benefits, and cyber risk management. This strategic investment approach signals a forward-looking mindset within the industry.” Three Key Insurtech Trends for 2024 The report identifies three major trends shaping insurtech investments in 2024: Public Insurtech Companies: Financial and Growth Strategies The report also notes that public insurtech companies are prioritizing revenue growth as their main goal. These firms are restructuring their financial strategies to boost cash flow and capitalize on rising revenue streams. Their growth prospects are supported by expanding asset portfolios and strong market demand. “Public insurtech companies are focusing on revenue growth and optimizing their financial frameworks to increase cash flow,” the report states. “The growth potential for these companies is driven by increasing revenue opportunities, broadening asset bases, and a robust market for their services.” In summary, while global insurtech funding saw a decline in 2023, the industry’s focus on GenAI, digital process management, and connected insurance technologies is setting the stage for a dynamic and forward-looking 2024.

Read More

Insurer Secures Unanimous Supreme Court Victory in New York Choice of Law Dispute

In the world of sports, a clean sweep, a shutout, or a perfect game is the ultimate achievement. In the legal arena, a unanimous decision from the U.S. Supreme Court is equally rare and significant. In a notable legal triumph, Great Lakes Insurance SE achieved a unanimous 9-0 victory in the Supreme Court on February 21, 2024. This victory follows a protracted legal battle that began in the District Court of Pennsylvania, advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and culminated in the Supreme Court’s decisive ruling. Background of the Case: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Company The heart of the dispute was the insurance contract’s clause selecting New York law to govern any future legal conflicts. Although the financial implications of this case were relatively minor compared to the broader marine insurance industry, the insurer’s determination to uphold a crucial maritime legal principle has significant long-term implications for marine insurance. Faced with the insured’s counterclaims—including allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, insurance bad faith, and violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices Law—the insurer was confronted with serious risks. Such claims could lead to the shifting of attorney’s fees, treble damages, and more, which might normally encourage insurers to settle rather than risk pursuing justice. However, Great Lakes Insurance, supported by The Goldman Maritime Law Group, opted to challenge the Third Circuit’s decision and seek clarity from the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Ruling: A Landmark Decision In a landmark ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh affirmed that choice of law provisions in maritime contracts should be upheld by default. This ruling is a major victory for establishing a consistent federal standard in maritime law and avoiding a patchwork of state laws that could complicate marine insurance disputes. The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the Third Circuit’s earlier judgment, which had questioned whether Pennsylvania’s public policy concerns might override the insurance contract’s choice of New York law. By upholding the New York choice of law clause, the Supreme Court eliminated the extra-contractual bad faith claims under Pennsylvania law, thereby ensuring that the dispute could be resolved based on the merits of the insurance claim itself. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision This ruling represents a significant advancement in maritime law, affirming that choice of law clauses in maritime contracts are generally enforceable. The decision establishes a clear, uniform legal framework for resolving maritime contract disputes, which will streamline the process and ensure fair adjudication of future insurance claims. Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion was particularly notable for its criticism of the 1955 Wilburn Boat v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance decision, which had previously influenced maritime insurance law. Thomas argued that Wilburn Boat was incorrectly decided and stressed that a uniform and enforceable set of rules is essential for the development of maritime law. Impact on the Marine Insurance Industry The Supreme Court’s decision sets a “bright-line” rule affirming that choice of law clauses are valid unless there is a strong argument against the selected jurisdiction. By endorsing New York’s insurance laws as a reasonable choice, the ruling supports a more consistent and predictable legal environment for marine insurers. This decision represents a major step forward in maritime law, helping insurers better assess risks, determine premiums, and ensure fair and efficient resolution of maritime insurance disputes.

Read More
Try your instant quote