Risk of Damage from Natural Hazards By State

Are you safe where you live? Find out in the article below whether you live in an area at risk for Natural Hazards.

Risk of Damage from Natural Hazards By State
 
Florida, Rhode Island, Louisiana, California and Massachusetts are the top 5 states for exposure to multiple natural hazards, according to an analysis by CoreLogic, a property data and analytics firm.
Michigan, West Virginia, New York, North Dakota and Vermont have the lowest score for exposure to multiple hazards, the report said.

 

 
The analysis was derived from the CoreLogic Hazard Risk Score (HRS), a new tool that gathers data on multiple natural hazard risks and combines them into a single score ranging from 0 to 100. The overall score indicates risk exposure at the individual property and location level.
 
For every geo-coded location across the U.S, the proprietary CoreLogic HRS is compiled using data representing nine natural hazards: flood, wildfire, tornado, storm surge, earthquake, straight-line wind, hurricane wind, hail and sinkhole.
 
Alaska and Hawaii were not included due to limited natural hazard risk data, CoreLogic said.
 
Locations with higher risk levels are exposed to multiple hazard risks and will, therefore, receive higher scores when the risk analysis is aggregated. Subsequently, locations with minimal risk levels have lower exposure and receive lower scores. Geo-coded locations are generated at the property-address level using latitude and longitude coordinates and include both residential and commercial properties.
 
 
“Florida’s high level of risk is driven by the potential for hurricane winds and storm surge damage along its extensive Atlantic and Gulf coastline, as well as the added potential for sinkholes, flooding and wildfires. Michigan alternatively ranks low for most natural hazard risks, other than flooding,” said Dr. Howard Botts, vice president and chief scientist for CoreLogic Spatial Solutions.
 
In calculating the overall score, both the probability of an event and the frequency of past events are significant contributing factors used to determine risk levels associated with individual hazards, as well as each distinct hazard’s risk contribution to total loss. The data is combined into an aggregated, consistent and normalized value that allows statistically valid combinations to be derived.
 
“In the past, natural hazards have been difficult to compare and combine in a meaningful way,” said Dr. Botts. He said the new Hazard Risk Score is a “single solution” that measures risk concentration consistently and pinpoints the riskiest places in the U.S. with accuracy.
 
“This insight is critical in conducting comparative risk management nationwide and fully understanding exposure to potential natural hazard damage,” he said.
 
CoreLogic says the score can be used to improve decision-making in a variety of business operations, including:
 
  • Business continuity and disaster recovery planning
  • Analyzing risk associated with a residential property or portfolios of properties
  • Measuring mitigation savings vs. total hazard potential damage
  • Evaluating and determining natural hazard risk levels of distribution and supplier networks
  • Recognizing which underinsured or uninsured properties may become at risk of default
  • Adverse selection avoidance and identification of “good risk” properties
 
 
U.S. Natural Hazard Risk by State*  (Ranked by CoreLogic Hazard Risk Score)
 
Rank  State   HRS
1           FL         94.51
2           RI         79.67
3           LA        79.23
4           CA        75.56
5           MA       72.12
6           KS        69.51
7           CT        69.04
8           OK       66.82
9           SC        66.38
10         DE       65.38
11         OR       64.89
12         NJ        61.54
13         IA        61.02
14         TX       60.89
15         NC       59.72
16         MO      57.81
17         DC       57.33
18         MS       57.05
19         AR       56.7
20         NH       55.3
21         ID        52.75
22         MD      52.28
23         CO       51.88
24         NE       51.86
25         IL         51.8
26         IN        50.74
27         GA       50.58
28         NV       50.12
29         AL       49.42
30         KY       47.34
31         TN       46.48
32         UT       45.22
33         NM      43.76
34         AZ       42.81
35         VA       42.35
36         WA      42.3
37         WI        38.52
38         SD        38.24
39         MT       37.91
40         MN      36.42
41         OH       34.61
42         ME       31.64
43         WY      30.24
44         PA        28.79
45         VT       28.31
46         ND       27.5
47         NY       24.97
48         WV      20.67
49         MI        20.22
Source: CoreLogic 2014
* AK and HI were excluded in the ranking due to limited natural hazard risk data
 
Article Originally Published By: Insurance Journal
 
*The posting of this article is for informational purposes only, as a courtesy to our reading audience. Provencher & Company does not own, has in no way been compensated for the sharing of this information, and content of said article belongs to that of the originating author. The use of or enrollment in any classes, seminars, training, etc. in no way constitutes or implies any endorsement of the provider of said programs. Provencher & Company shares no financial obligation to attendee or organizer.

Failure to File a Proof of Loss is Fatal

shutterstock_153125888If you think a proof of loss is just a piece of paper that is required by insurance companies, think again.  As the following policy holder found out, failing to complete that proof of loss can have wide-reaching effects. 

 
 

Failure to File a Proof of Loss is Fatal, and the Defense Does Not Require a Showing of Prejudice

by Dick Bennett

On June 3, Connecticut’s intermediate level appellate court held that the failure of a policyholder to file a sworn statement in proof of loss was fatal to his claim.  Palkimas v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 150 Conn.App. 655, 2014 Conn.App. LEXIS 244 (June 3, 2014) rejected the insured’s arguments that prejudice need be shown, holding that while the insurance company may well need to make a showing of prejudice in cases involving the belated submission of a proof, its burden to make such a showing never arises in cases in which the insured has never submitted such a document.

Richard Palkimas was insured under a homeowner’s policy issued by State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, and he sustained two losses.  The first occurred in September 2006, “when workers negligently used a toilet that had been blocked off resulting in a buildup of sewage, and the breaking and rupturing of a sanitary pipe, as well as the spreading of sewage and fecal matter throughout the home.”  Then in January of the following year, the policyholder discovered that “freezing temperatures caused substantial damage to [his] home, including fracturing of the plaster walls and building structure.”

The insured made claim for both events, and he hired a public adjuster to negotiate with State Farm on his behalf.  It was undisputed, however, that he never filed a sworn statement in proof of loss in connection with either claim.  The insurer ultimately denied coverage for both, contending that the policyholder’s failure to submit a proof meant that he had failed to satisfy a condition precedent to coverage under the contract of insurance. Read Entire Article