Flood Insurance ?

[Argie's Wife]

...the bank isn't always right, as DickR also experienced...

I'm glad we disputed it and I'm glad my neighbors did too. It would have been a waste of money.

[jmen24]

Bigdog, as you obviously know "most" condo ownership rights are from the exterior framing in, (windows, siding, decks, roofing, building frame and foundations all owned by the association, and require approval to renovate). If you have flood insurance on the interior but the condo association does not have flood insurance on the exterior, what are you really insuring. If the building gets damaged in a flood and the association's insurance company will not pay to repair or replace their portion, will the association pick up the tab and rebuild, or do you get a check and told to walk along your merry way. Having money to rebuild the interior of a building that won't have an exterior seems odd to me. I would think that the bank would require the association to have some type of flood policy as well or whats the point.

I am with AW on this, fight hard, if they won't budge then how bad do you really want it.

[Shedwannabe]

I was in Iowa and looked at the flood maps - we were just a few inches above the 500 year flood plane. In 1993 our house was NOT under water.... but many who were in the 500 year flood plane were, and everyone in the 100 year flood plane. A year and a half ago (having sold our home before then) our house was surrounded by water, but it didn't actually come into the house. Everyone in the 500 year flood plane was flooded, and of course everyone in the 100 year flood plane was wiped out (many have not rebuilt their homes, just tore them down). Interestingly, our neighbors on the UPHILL side of us had $30,000 in flood damage... because they had a basement. I think our old house might have been the only one in the entire development that didn't sustain flood damage. However, the yard was totally wrecked from being underwater for two months.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Does anyone know how high the lake would get with the 100 year flood?

[secondcurve]

Folks:

Be careful about fighting flood insurance. It is there for a reason. As someone noted above, if your home is flooded you won't be covered by a normal homeowners policy and could be on the hook for repairs and they an be significant. I have a friend who similarly fought the requirement to have flood insurance on a property he bought because he didn't think it was needed. Well, he was forced to take the insurance and 4-years after doing so a nearby river flooded and caused $60,000 worth of damage. Guess what? He was glad he had the insurance.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Folks:

Be careful about fighting flood insurance. It is there for a reason. As someone noted above, if your home is flooded you won't be covered by a normal homeowners policy and could be on the hook for repairs and they an be significant. I have a friend who similarly fought the requirement to have flood insurance on a property he bought because he didn't think it was needed. Well, he was forced to take the insurance and 4-years after doing so a nearby river flooded and caused $60,000 worth of damage. Guess what? He was glad he had the insurance.

If a surveyor finds that you are truly in a Flood Zone, there's nothing further you can do to fight it. You're forced, like secondcurve's friend to take it. If a bean counter at a desk in Iowa is saying you're in a Flood Zone, then no and your review of the FEMA maps, even as a lay-person, show that you aren't - then fight it.

The point of what I've shared is: put to rest any doubt that you NEED it before you sign.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Does anyone know how high the lake would get with the 100 year flood?

We all do. We had several 100-year storms in May of 2006.

The lakes were as high then as I've ever seen them. If Merrymeeting had gone another foot or less higher, the dam would have overflowed and dumped into Alton. Granted, I suppose that could happen. But I can't imagine a year with much more rain than we had that year, certainly not for insurance table planning purposes!

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Does anyone know how high the lake would get with the 100 year flood?

I did a little research on your interesting question. According to FEMA maps, the lake is rated A2 506. As I understand it, this code means a 100 year flood will have the lake at 506'.

I checked this against Bizer's lake level chart and found that the highest lake level on the Bizer chart was in 1984 at about 505.85' Full pool for the lake is 504.32'

FEMA considers all flood controls impacting the specific areas, so they must be considering the Lakeport Dam. The bigger impacts from a 100 year flood seem to be down stream.

R2B

[Merrymeeting]

I also did a bit of research and thought others might be interested in what I found.

Here's a general view of what a 100-year flood means.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/100yearflood.html

This is an interesting, recent report on flooding in NH that includes data from the May 2006 storms that I mentioned earlier. One of the more interesting extracts,

"in mid-May 2006, 8 to12 inches of continuous heavy rain over a three-day period caused the worst flooding in New Hampshire since the hurricane of 1938 (NOAA National Climatic Data Center). USGS reported the highest ever flows recorded on 12 rivers in central and southern New Hampshire; six were higher than the predicted 100-year flood. A reported 600 roads were closed, hundreds of families had to evacuate, and dozens of homes were lost."

The full report here, http://des.nh.gov/organization/divis...t_chpt_2.7.pdf

Finally, another recent and detailed report on flood plains in NH.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5206/pdf/sir2008-5206.pdf


My argument to the bank would be if it didn't flood in 2006, it won't now!

[tis]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I did a little research on your interesting question. According to FEMA maps, the lake is rated A2 506. As I understand it, this code means a 100 year flood will have the lake at 506'.

I checked this against Bizer's lake level chart and found that the highest lake level on the Bizer chart was in 1984 at about 505.85' Full pool for the lake is 504.32'

FEMA considers all flood controls impacting the specific areas, so they must be considering the Lakeport Dam. The bigger impacts from a 100 year flood seem to be down stream.

R2B

That 1984 was the highest water I have ever seen. Lots of places were flooded then and I remember them calling it a hundred year flood. However, I thought I remembered a flood after that being called a hundred year storm too. (Maybe the first not wake flood?) But the highest I remember in our yard was 1984.

[onthebay]

I had the same issue when my mortgage was sold to another bank. The original mortgage company didn't require it. The new company said that it was required as a condition of the mortgage.
Since I figured I already had a mortgage with them and it seemed like they were changing the rules after the fact I more or less ignored them. Big mistake. They signed me up for their flood insurance at about $2500.00 per year. Since they included in the mortgage I would be in default if I didn't pay it. I was able to get cheaper flood insurance through my agent for half the price which was still twice as much as my regular homeowner policy.


I have shoreline on Pickerel cove but am about 20 feet higher in elevation. The elevation change on the Paugus bay side is even greater.
I wasn't in a floodzone but I was abutting a floodzone. Well the floodzone was the lake. Try telling that to a rep in the midwest who doesn't have a clue. Anyway it was a long process and fight but eventualy it was dropped as a requirement.

You may want to get a policy now to get the mortgage and fight it later. I was able to get some of the premium back when it was determined it wasn't needed.

[upnorth]

I had the same situation and couldn't fight it in time for the closing. But, I believe the bank is required to remove the flood insurance requirment if you later prove that you are not in a flood zone.

So, what I did -- I closed by purchasing the insurance for the first year at about $900. During that year, I found out that each and every property around any lake or river is automatically in a flood zone -- the FEMA guy I called in Washington told me that they basically take a yellow hightlighter around any waterway and deem that area to be a flood zone -- the width of the yellow highter translates into a zone of about 200 feet back from the water. They have no clue from the maps how fast the rise is back from the lake and that's where a surveyor comes in. I hired Associated Surveyors at a cost of I believe about $1500 and had my property surveyed. They confirmed that the foundation was not in a flood zone. I used his stamped drawings and affidavit and submitted it all to FEMA and got a waiver. I brought that waiver to the attention of the bank and they withdrew the requirement. Granted -- it cost me the first year's premium, the survey and some time, but I eleiminted the requirement over the full lenght of the mortgage (30 yrs). Perhaps I'm too late for you, but if you PM me, I can talk with you on the phone.

[robmac]

The condo insurance would cover the structure for flood damage your insurance would cover inside damage. BD,you can also pull a claim history on the property,I actually got one on a property from the agent that handles all my other policies.

[bigdog]

FYI, the Condo complex Master Insurance policy on the property,
'DOES NOT' contain flood insurance.

Will let you know how things play out......

Bigdog