# Flood Insurance



## ofishloutdoorsman (May 15, 2002)

Anyone give any advice or input on flood insurance? I'm in Van Buren county and mortgage company is requiring flood insurance, first quote I've got is almost three times my annual homeowners premium. I guess this is a FEMA mandate?


----------



## agbuckhunter (Oct 12, 2011)

http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/residential_coverage/rc_overview.jsp

Not sure if you gave them a try.


----------



## big show (Sep 10, 2007)

The flood maps changed a few years ago. If you are positive you don't need the insurance, hire a surveyor to prove your house is not at an elevation prone to flooding. You can opt out with proper documentation.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

FEMA wasn't terribly scientific when they initally determined which properties were in flood zones. They have refined their methods, but in a LOT of places they just called a city or township office, and asked for the person who has lived there the longest, then asked that person where the highest floodwaters in memory reached. Since their inception, they have amended maps as floods occurred, but that is always "looking back," and the damage is done before anyone pays premiums to cover the damage done by floods. 

If you want to contest your flood determination, you need something called an Elevation Survey. This has nothing to do with the boundaries of your property (well very little), and has everything to do with how high above flood level your property sits. If you have some acreage, and part of it floods, but that part is a reasonable distance from where the house is located, you can appeal to FEMA to make a LOMA (Letter Of Map Amendment), which will show that your HOME doesn't sit in the flood zone. But you need the elevation survey to apply for a LOMA. The whole process takes about 45 - 60 days. Elevation surveys are typically _*a lot *_more expensive than a Boundary Survey.


----------



## mooneye (Feb 24, 2008)

if your property has not flooded in the last 100 years you can get out of it. FEMA is just trying to scam. My experience has been never let your mortgage company find your insurance. I had my best luck with AAA. They bought the insurance from FEMA. Cheaper that way. Also, if you don't hold a mortgage you don't need flood insurance. One other scam they like to pull is make sure you only insure the value of the house. DO NOT COUNT THE LOT VALUE ON YOUR INSURANCE. Your land will always be there if it floods or not.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Try to avoid it if at all possible. My son in Vermont had to have it when he bought his first home, his mortgage company required it, even though the nearest water is a very small burbling stream that normally was about 10 feet wide and 6 inches deep and it's at least 500 yards away and downhill from my son's home. 

Then came Irene just a year later, and that little stream turned into a raging torrent of water that roared past my son's, taking his neighbor's home and several others, tearing out the adjoining highway bridge and hundreds of trees, and completely flooded my son's basement just from the 11 inches of rain that fell in less than 2 hours. The stream itself never came closer than about 300 yards away. 

My son's furnace, washer and dryer, freezer with a thousand dollars or more of food in it, a very valuable sportscard collection and boxes full of clothes, books, textbooks for my son's students, and other household goods was all ruined. The water forced itself through a crack in the poured walls of the basement that grew to over an inch wide, along with an equally large crack in the floor. He had to have the home inspected to make sure it was still stable on a basement with that much damage. He was told it was borderline, and that the basement would not withstand another 100 year flood. 

So he was very grateful for FEMA and flood insurance, which sent out a host of inspectors who gave him reams of paper to fill out. 

FEMA sent him $90. His flood insurance, which had premiums of $1600 a year, paid him a little over $500. 

Avoid it...any way you can.


----------



## tuckersdad (Oct 30, 2010)

FEMA site is actually quite good at explaining the LOMA process...I did all the paperwork, hired the survey Co. and sent it in...approved in about 30 days...your original property survey should show the elevations-compare to the datum on the flood map panel and if you are above send it in...if below however you are screwed unless you pay off the loan and be done with them...flood insurance is a SCAM...and I would hate to have to sell a house that requires it for a loan...


----------



## moodman (Feb 23, 2005)

I have flood ins. because I live in a flood plain & It's expensive. I have a $5000.00 deductable on the structure only & It's $1200 something a year. To add contents would send it up quite abit more. Like you people been saying FEMA is a scam. If I hit the lotto & pay off my mortgage I can drop it.


----------



## mi duckdown (Jul 1, 2006)

And guess what they don't pay for. Unless water is the main floor, if your have crawl space. Need to Do alot homework. To get out of that.
It can be done..I think in my area it is 586.1/2 above sea level. really the lakes are so low.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

If you have financing on your home, and the home is in a flood zone, your lender would be stupid NOT to require flood coverage. And, no, flood insurance doesn't cover contents of your home. It only covers the structure of your home, and only in the event of catastrophic damage. Your regular homeowner's policy covers contents. And if you withhold evidence of your homeowner's and/or flood insurance from your lender (who knows if your property is considered to be in a flood zone, or not), then the lender has the right to _*force-place insurance*_ to protect their collateral - your home. If the company servicing a mortgage cannot get a client to provide proof of insurance, the servicer will get their own policy, and the premium for that policy will be literally up to three times the price you find yourself, if you shop around. 

Really, the simplest solution is - DON'T LIVE IN A FLOOD ZONE. I never understood how people can tolerate having their homes or basements flood on any kind of regular basis. High ground rocks. Swamps are........swampy. You want waterfront? Make sure the house sits up on a bit of a hill. Shopping for a home? Make a list of features you are interested in.



> I want some nice big mature trees. I want my front door to face east/west/north/south. I want some nice flat land around the house for an all purpose yard. *I want the house to be elevated from the land around it.*


You can think flood insurance is a scam, but the truth is that FEMA is flat broke, and has paid out far more in claims than it has taken in with premiums. Linda G's example is classic. Her Son' neighbors lost homes to a "burbling stream," when torrential rains hit. Should those people just be responsible for the debt owned on their homes, and not have the homes covered for complete destruction? Of course not - so they are required to carry flood insurance if they have financing on their homes.

So, if you don't have financing on your home, you aren't required to carry any insurance. Heck, why pay for any insurance? It is all a scam - until you need it. The fact of the matter is, if you live in a flood zone, you are well advised to have flood insurance. Well, unless you can afford to write off your home, if there is a catastrophic flood. They seem to be more common these last few years. :sad:


----------



## ofishloutdoorsman (May 15, 2002)

thanks for all replies, still shopping have four quotes coming.


----------



## Greenbush future (Sep 8, 2005)

Fishndude said:


> FEMA wasn't terribly scientific when they initally determined which properties were in flood zones. They have refined their methods, but in a LOT of places they just called a city or township office, and asked for the person who has lived there the longest, then asked that person where the highest floodwaters in memory reached. Since their inception, they have amended maps as floods occurred, but that is always "looking back," and the damage is done before anyone pays premiums to cover the damage done by floods.
> 
> If you want to contest your flood determination, you need something called an Elevation Survey. This has nothing to do with the boundaries of your property (well very little), and has everything to do with how high above flood level your property sits. If you have some acreage, and part of it floods, but that part is a reasonable distance from where the house is located, you can appeal to FEMA to make a LOMA (Letter Of Map Amendment), which will show that your HOME doesn't sit in the flood zone. But you need the elevation survey to apply for a LOMA. The whole process takes about 45 - 60 days. Elevation surveys are typically _*a lot *_more expensive than a Boundary Survey.



Fishing dude you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject, but would you agree FEMA is scrambling to force anyone even remotely close to a mud puddle to get this insurance, due to all the damage that has occurred in other states no where near Michigan? I have talked with several folks who were told they needed it but in the end most don't, it's nothing but big govt trying to recover from poor planning in other states. If it were me and I received anything from FEMA, I would be really cautious and make darn sure before I considered giving my cash to any insurance company.


----------



## augustus0603 (Oct 24, 2005)

Shopping around for rates probably won't help. FEMA sets rates and controls the program. 

It does seem like they are suddenly requiring it but flood plains were so outdated, Katrina and Sandy has them scrambling to right the ship. 

Your best course of action might be to hire a suveyor to do a determination if the coverage is necessary. It can be costly and take some time, but it's better than paying unnecessary premiums.


----------



## augustus0603 (Oct 24, 2005)

Greenbush future said:


> it's nothing but big govt trying to recover from poor planning in other states.


Ahh yes. Poor planning, like providing disaster relief to people out of their homes with no water or food? 

Too bad they coulnd't have just sawed the southern portion of Mississippi and Louisiana off and let them drift to Cuba....


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

Greenbush future said:


> Fishing dude you seem quite knowledgeable on this subject, but would you agree FEMA is scrambling to force anyone even remotely close to a mud puddle to get this insurance, due to all the damage that has occurred in other states no where near Michigan? I have talked with several folks who were told they needed it but in the end most don't, it's nothing but big govt trying to recover from poor planning in other states. If it were me and I received anything from FEMA, I would be really cautious and make darn sure before I considered giving my cash to any insurance company.


Absolutely the government is doing what they can to bank some funds to support people who are adversely affected by natural disasters. The beautiful thing about flood insurance is that there is a GREAT process in place to contest the need for it. Somewhat expensive, but when you think about the cost of flood insurance, and owning a home, it really isn't all that much. If your property is deemed to be in a flood zone, get an elevation survey. Then submit a copy of the survey (ALWAYS keep the original) to FEMA, and request a LOMA - Letter Of Map Amendment. If the LOMA is granted, then KEEP THAT DOCUMENT. It will come in very handy for anyone who owns that home after you. What a great added value when you sell your home, or will it to heirs! 

Bear in mind that the government has no control over natural disasters. They just ended up continually bailing out people whose homes were flooded. So they formed FEMA, and mandated flood insurance, so those who reap the benefits pay into the source of the aid. 

The concept is great. Adding layers of administration adds cost, and as I already mentioned they pay up front, and collect in arrears. How many homeowners were adversely affected by Hurricane Sandy, who never paid a penny into flood insurance, but were bailed out by FEMA? It will take years of those people paying for flood insurance before FEMA recoups the money they paid out to those folks, in aid. 

This all begs the question, "is it right for the government to be responsible for the well being of all of it's citizens?" If people who lived in flood zones had to assume all of the risk for the costs of rebuilding after severe floods, then a lot fewer people would live in flood zones.


----------



## Greenbush future (Sep 8, 2005)

augustus0603 said:


> Ahh yes. Poor planning, like providing disaster relief to people out of their homes with no water or food?
> 
> Too bad they coulnd't have just sawed the southern portion of Mississippi and Louisiana off and let them drift to Cuba....


Only an idiot would pour more funds into a city built well below sea level. But who cares when others are paying right? Nice try.


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

For some, the best solution is simply to pay cash.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

WoW. said:


> For some, the best solution is simply to pay cash.


Yes, that is a great solution to the quandry of needing to buy flood insurance if your home is in a flood zone, and you have financing on it. So someone pays cash, and owns their home free-and-clear. What happens when their home is severely damaged by a flood? Do they just pay more cash to rebuild it? Should the government only bail out those whose homes are destroyed by floods, and who carried flood insurance? Personally, that seems like a good plan to me.


----------



## WoW. (Aug 11, 2011)

Fishndude said:


> Yes, that is a great solution to the quandry of needing to buy flood insurance if your home is in a flood zone, and you have financing on it. So someone pays cash, and owns their home free-and-clear. What happens when their home is severely damaged by a flood? Do they just pay more cash to rebuild it? Should the government only bail out those whose homes are destroyed by floods, and who carried flood insurance? Personally, that seems like a good plan to me.


I said "for some". Some folks got hammered with the new FEMA flood maps and if they had a high mortgage amount, they found themselves in over their head...not from the water but from the insurance costs.

Changing the rules screwed a lot of folks over and drowned more than one real estate transaction that was in the works.


----------

