IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjrhxx/v29y2020is1ps144-s169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deductible Choice in Flood Insurance: Who Chooses the Maximum?

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy Dombrowski
  • R. Kelley Pace
  • Dimuthu Ratnadiwakara
  • V. Carlos Slawson, Jr.

Abstract

Although some have proposed eliminating the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce government expenditures, other alternatives exist that could reduce the cost of the program and increase its viability, such as increasing deductibles, which may increase participation and revenue. The​ recently released FIMA NFIP Redacted Policies Data Set provides unprecedented opportunities to examine homeowner deductible choices for flood insurance policies using policy-level data. The menu of deductibles currently ranges from $1,000 to $10,000 in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), but until April 1, 2015, the maximum deductible was $5,000. Using a matched sample of 252,280 SFHA policies that were active for the 2013–2019 time period, we provide insight regarding characteristics of homeowners who chose the maximum deductible as well as those who switched from the $5,000 to the new $10,000 deductible. Consistent with nudge theory and stickiness, we show that the majority of the homeowners accept the default deductible option. Individuals in high-income and high-premium areas were more likely to select the maximum dedu​ctible. Level of education and past flood events do not impact whether people decide to select the maximum deductible option.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy Dombrowski & R. Kelley Pace & Dimuthu Ratnadiwakara & V. Carlos Slawson, Jr., 2020. "Deductible Choice in Flood Insurance: Who Chooses the Maximum?," Journal of Housing Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(S1), pages 144-169, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjrhxx:v:29:y:2020:i:s1:p:s144-s169
    DOI: 10.1080/10527001.2020.1839320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10527001.2020.1839320
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10527001.2020.1839320?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjrhxx:v:29:y:2020:i:s1:p:s144-s169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjrh20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.