Table 2.-FIRE INSURANCE COSTS, LOSSES, AND LOSS RATIOS ON FIRE-RESISTIVE BUILDINGS IN PROTECTED AREAS: 1 1948-52 1 The terms protected and unprotected areas, described earlier, refer to the presence or absence of organized Irefighting services. Information on mutual and independent company insurance not included in some State reported data. (See table 11 for such additional data.) Reported in section III under State-operated programs. Data for these States not available to State department of education officials. * State operated parts of total insurance program reported in section III. Breakdown by types of companies was not available for North Carolina; hence, the amounts in the totals columns exceed sums of other columns. The Texas report did not show fire-resistive buildings as a separate class. to provide reliable experience data. In this table and the one following, data for fire-resistive school buildings are not reported for Texas. The Texas rating system does not seem to provide a separate school classification for its fire-resistive buildings. Hence, the data shown for Texas probably do not represent State experiences on fire-resistive buildings. The overall loss ratio for stock companies on these fire-resistive buildings for the years 1948-52 was 24.8 percent and for mutuals, 13.0 percent. The overall stock and mutual loss ratios for all fire-resistive buildings in fire-protected areas during the same period was 23.6 percent. Table 3 provides information on fire-resistive buildings in unprotected areas. Data in table 3 apply for fire-resistive school buildings in areas not having approved fire protection facilities. The coverage for fireresistive buildings in this class is less and of course the loss ratio ranges are greater. In these cases the table totals probably merit more consideration than do the totals for individual States because of the more extensive coverage. For stock companies the overall loss ratio on unprotected fireresistive buildings was 29.0 percent. For mutuals it was 24.3 percent; and for both stock and mutuals for such buildings, 28.6 percent. Table 4 provides premium cost and loss information for brick buildings in protected areas. The buildings included in this class are generally thought of as having masonry exterior walls but some combustible interior construction. There was again a wide range of loss ratios. Texas showed a loss ratio of 86 percent, South Dakota 84.1, Louisiana 72.9, New York 70.1, and Oklahoma 69.7. There were at least nine States with loss ratios of over 50 percent. Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming had loss ratios of less than 10 percent each, and 10 States had loss ratios of less than 20 percent. The overall loss ratio for stock companies on brick protected buildings was 41.2 percent. For the mutual group it was 29.2 percent and for both stock and mutuals, 40.1 percent. Table 5 shows the premium costs, losses, and loss ratios for brick buildings in unprotected areas. As in some previous tables, loss ratio percentages may be very high where the amount of coverage or the number of cases is small. For instance, a loss of about $170,000 in Rhode Island showed a high loss ratio percentage partly because the coverage and the premiums collected on this type of building were not large in that State and one or two losses could increase the loss ratio percentage. It seems probable that this classification includes a number of rural or consolidated schools where organized fire protection facilities are not available. Other than Rhode Island, two States, Tennessee and Pennsylvania, Table 3.-FIRE INSURANCE COSTS, LOSSES, AND LOSS RATIOS ON FIRE-RESISTIVE BUILDINGS IN UNPROTECTED AREAS:1 1948-52 1 The terms protected and unprotected areas, described earlier, refer to the presence or absence of organized firefighting services. Information on mutual and independent company insurance not included in some State reported data. (See table 11 for such additional data.) Reported in section III under State operated programs. Data for these States not available to State department of education officials. State operated parts of total insurance program reported in section III. Breakdown by types of companies was not available for North Carolina; hence, the amounts in the totals columns exceed sums of other columns. The Texas report did not show fire-resistive buildings as a separate class. 385054 0-563 Table 4.-FIRE INSURANCE COSTS, LOSSES, AND LOSS RATIOS ON BRICK1 BUILDINGS IN PROTECTED AREAS:2 1948-52 1 The term brick (or ordinary construction) refers to a building having brick or other masonry exterior walls but some combustible interior construction, such as joists or studding. 2 The terms protected and unprotected areas, described earlier, refer to the presence or absence of organized firefighting services. 3 Information on mutual and independent company insurance not included in some State reported data. (See table 11 for such additional data.) Reported in section III under State operated programs. Data for these States not available to Ŝtate department of education officials. State-operated parts of total insurance program reported in section III. 7 Breakdown by types of companies was not available for North Carolina; hence, the amounts in the totals columns exceed sums of other columns. 1 Table 5.-FIRE INSURANCE COSTS, LOSSES, AND LOSS RATIOS ON BRICK BUILDINGS IN UNPROTECTED AREAS: 2 1948-52 1 The term brick (or ordinary construction) refers to a building having brick or other masonry exterior walls but some combustible interior construction, such as joists or studding. The terms protected and unprotected areas, described earlier, refer to the presence or absence of organized firefighting services. 3 Information on mutual and independent company insurance not included in some State reported data. (See table 11 for such additional data.) Reported in section III under State operated programs. Data for these States not available to State department of education officials. State operated parts of total insurance program reported in section III. 7 Breakdown by types of companies was not available for North Carolina; hence, the amounts in the totals columns exceed sums of other columns. |