South gym roof collapse
Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat
-
- Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 802
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:30 pm
Re: South gym roof collapse
Another thing to consider is most insurances cover economic losses. Considering the usage of those 2 buildings, I would guess that would be a decent sum.
-
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:58 pm
Re: South gym roof collapse
You have ZERO clue as to what I am talking about. The roof/building that fail were really nothing special, cmu wall, poorly built, poor design, really nothing to them. The insurance MSU would get from them won't cover a descent building in today's standards. Here is an example you might understand . If YOU wreck a 1992 GEO Tracker(old building), the insurance company isn't going going to replace it with a LandRoover(New Building).Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:10 amYou have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Polson is going through something similar. 1940s gym roof collapsed due to snow. Travelers Insurance to replace with like new structure at todays rates. Probably be in the 3-4 mil range.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:59 amThose building aren't or weren't worth much @ basically a warehouse used as a gym. My point is I don't think insurance will cover a new building, with the new standards, like steel building, steel trusses, and maybe a pitched roof.Cataholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 amWhy would insurance not cover much? Each building’s value should be regularly updated on the policy. If we have insurance, the value should be significant. It might not cover replacement value, but the coverage should be enough that replacement can be expected in the near future.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pmNow IF insurance covers the ignorance from the early 70s it won't cover much. MSU still won't build it correctly. Really its 4 walls a roof, they will still find a way too build it with recycled pallets, egg cartons and cricket dung.AFCAT wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pmI think you just answered your own question. The reason is money.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:33 pmWent to the Wilson School Gym in Bozeman this morning for some YMCA basketball action. I was blown away the gym that was built in 36'-37'(someone correct me if I'm wrong) has a slightly curved roof(positive drainage) , extremely beefy steel truss's, solid concrete walls with windows, has lasted longer than a flat roof building, weird. Why over time did construction get away from the common sense approach and go to the cost savings only approach?
-
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:54 am
- Location: A Cave in the Musselshell
Re: South gym roof collapse
Top post in thread.
Punchin Griz fans in the mouth since 2002
#RTD
19-4-0
#RTD
19-4-0
-
- BobcatNation Letterman
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:30 am
Re: South gym roof collapse
Insurance. Would NOT removing a large buildup of snow on a flat roof constitute a mitigating factor, a loop hole in the payoff scheme of things?
"I'm just a fly in the ointment, Hans. The monkey in the wrench. The pain in the ass."
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 6737
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:09 pm
Re: South gym roof collapse
Not gonna day that you have zero clue as that is kind of being a dick... and house divided could have used some better words..FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:28 amYou have ZERO clue as to what I am talking about. The roof/building that fail were really nothing special, cmu wall, poorly built, poor design, really nothing to them. The insurance MSU would get from them won't cover a descent building in today's standards. Here is an example you might understand . If YOU wreck a 1992 GEO Tracker(old building), the insurance company isn't going going to replace it with a LandRoover(New Building).Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:10 amYou have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Polson is going through something similar. 1940s gym roof collapsed due to snow. Travelers Insurance to replace with like new structure at todays rates. Probably be in the 3-4 mil range.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:59 amThose building aren't or weren't worth much @ basically a warehouse used as a gym. My point is I don't think insurance will cover a new building, with the new standards, like steel building, steel trusses, and maybe a pitched roof.Cataholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 amWhy would insurance not cover much? Each building’s value should be regularly updated on the policy. If we have insurance, the value should be significant. It might not cover replacement value, but the coverage should be enough that replacement can be expected in the near future.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pmNow IF insurance covers the ignorance from the early 70s it won't cover much. MSU still won't build it correctly. Really its 4 walls a roof, they will still find a way too build it with recycled pallets, egg cartons and cricket dung.AFCAT wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pmI think you just answered your own question. The reason is money.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:33 pmWent to the Wilson School Gym in Bozeman this morning for some YMCA basketball action. I was blown away the gym that was built in 36'-37'(someone correct me if I'm wrong) has a slightly curved roof(positive drainage) , extremely beefy steel truss's, solid concrete walls with windows, has lasted longer than a flat roof building, weird. Why over time did construction get away from the common sense approach and go to the cost savings only approach?
I will say that your insurance premium for a 1992 Tracker is for a specific amount of potential claim (cost to replace that specific value of vehicle). The insurance premium paid to cover a LandRover would probably be more than the value of that 1992 Tracker. Your analogy does not work as auto insurance is a completely different beast.
Property insurance has all kinds of different coverages and options. The coverage could have been for total replacement value or at a much lower level like the estimated value of the building. The premiums paid for each amount of insurance would vary dramatically and MSU could choose what coverage they want (bare bones low cost versus expensive complete recovery value).
-
- Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:49 am
Re: South gym roof collapse
Plus, vehicles depreciate in value. whereas the building, built cheap or not, will appreciate in value
- Bear Spray
- BobcatNation Redshirt
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:11 pm
- Location: live, on your computer, now
Re: South gym roof collapse
I'd be surprised if the insurance on these buildings is short on replacing them. That's the idea with property coverages - to replace what you have. Policies come with provisions for building ordinance and law upgrades as well. In Montana the law says that the amount of coverage you insured the building for is the amount you get in a total loss, and some policies allow for and extra 25 to 50% coverage in the event you can't replace for the amount of coverage. Were we on Egriz, Player Rep would be telling you you're stupid and never played the (insurance) game. But we're not, so let's be cival. Making a comparison to auto claims where they don't have replacement cost, they have actual cash valuation, makes no sense. Let's hope MSU has their buildings on a blanket form - so they can draw from the blanket total limit - which will replace these buildings.Cataholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:02 pmNot gonna day that you have zero clue as that is kind of being a dick... and house divided could have used some better words..FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:28 amYou have ZERO clue as to what I am talking about. The roof/building that fail were really nothing special, cmu wall, poorly built, poor design, really nothing to them. The insurance MSU would get from them won't cover a descent building in today's standards. Here is an example you might understand . If YOU wreck a 1992 GEO Tracker(old building), the insurance company isn't going going to replace it with a LandRoover(New Building).Cat4LifeHouseDivided wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:10 amYou have zero clue as to what you are talking about. Polson is going through something similar. 1940s gym roof collapsed due to snow. Travelers Insurance to replace with like new structure at todays rates. Probably be in the 3-4 mil range.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 9:59 amThose building aren't or weren't worth much @ basically a warehouse used as a gym. My point is I don't think insurance will cover a new building, with the new standards, like steel building, steel trusses, and maybe a pitched roof.Cataholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:15 amWhy would insurance not cover much? Each building’s value should be regularly updated on the policy. If we have insurance, the value should be significant. It might not cover replacement value, but the coverage should be enough that replacement can be expected in the near future.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 7:00 pmNow IF insurance covers the ignorance from the early 70s it won't cover much. MSU still won't build it correctly. Really its 4 walls a roof, they will still find a way too build it with recycled pallets, egg cartons and cricket dung.AFCAT wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 6:37 pmI think you just answered your own question. The reason is money.FTG247365 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 5:33 pmWent to the Wilson School Gym in Bozeman this morning for some YMCA basketball action. I was blown away the gym that was built in 36'-37'(someone correct me if I'm wrong) has a slightly curved roof(positive drainage) , extremely beefy steel truss's, solid concrete walls with windows, has lasted longer than a flat roof building, weird. Why over time did construction get away from the common sense approach and go to the cost savings only approach?
I will say that your insurance premium for a 1992 Tracker is for a specific amount of potential claim (cost to replace that specific value of vehicle). The insurance premium paid to cover a LandRover would probably be more than the value of that 1992 Tracker. Your analogy does not work as auto insurance is a completely different beast.
Property insurance has all kinds of different coverages and options. The coverage could have been for total replacement value or at a much lower level like the estimated value of the building. The premiums paid for each amount of insurance would vary dramatically and MSU could choose what coverage they want (bare bones low cost versus expensive complete recovery value).
- BigBruceBaker
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3921
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:24 pm
- Location: God's Country
Re: South gym roof collapse
Ummmmmmm.....
I love the Bobcats and the Miami Hurricanes an unhealthy level
- catsrback76
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8743
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
- Location: Sitting on the hill looking at the Adriatic!
Re: South gym roof collapse
Just found out my two nephews were in the building the evening before the collapse with one scheduled to be in it the morning of.
So thankful no one was in the building at the time. MSU has dodged the preverbal bullet on these collapses!
So thankful no one was in the building at the time. MSU has dodged the preverbal bullet on these collapses!
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 7177
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm
Re: South gym roof collapse
It was a big snow year, but I’ve seen bigger. Maybe the way the wind was blowing caused huge drifts? Roofs typically hold 20 lbs per square foot, which equates to 3-4 feet of snow depending on how dense/wet it is. It’ll be interesting to hear what the investigation concludes.
-
- 2nd Team All-BobcatNation
- Posts: 1186
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:46 pm
Re: South gym roof collapse
Snow drifting is also considered in roof load calculations or should be. Any structure above the roof, parapet, mechanical equipment, etc. is taken into account in these calculations. This snow drift weight can easily double or triple the snow load for a certain area.iaafan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:30 amIt was a big snow year, but I’ve seen bigger. Maybe the way the wind was blowing caused huge drifts? Roofs typically hold 20 lbs per square foot, which equates to 3-4 feet of snow depending on how dense/wet it is. It’ll be interesting to hear what the investigation concludes.
- kennethnoisewater
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:41 pm
- Location: Kalispell, MT
Re: South gym roof collapse
First of all, there's no way MSU insures any of their buildings at Actual Cash Value (ACV). Actual Cash Value is Replacement Cost minus depreciation. A 46-year-old building, and specifically its components (roof, walls, plumbing, etc), have depreciated to the point that the building would essentially be worthless. The difference with property is that its market value (what a realtor tells you it's worth) is different from its Actual Cash Value. If I have a 30 year old house and the roof has a 30 year lifespan (according to insurance adjusters) and I was dumb enough to insure at ACV, my roof could cave in and I wouldn't get a dime for the repair. So you insure at Replacement Cost, because even though your building has depreciated, you can't rebuild for a depreciated number or even the original cost. Most property policies include an inflation guard provision, which increases the value by about 4% a year automatically. MSU and its insurance carrier are smart enough to know that it would cost a couple million bucks to rebuild each of those gyms with materials of a like kind and quality, so they were insured at a value sufficient to rebuild. And the insurance company (not sure who it is) will pay out the stated value of the buildings, assuming they assess it as a total loss, which they almost have to do I'd think.
The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.
The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.
I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.
The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.
The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.
I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.
-
- Member # Retired
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:04 pm
Re: South gym roof collapse
Being an ex-insurance person, you are right on in your explanation.kennethnoisewater wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:14 amFirst of all, there's no way MSU insures any of their buildings at Actual Cash Value (ACV). Actual Cash Value is Replacement Cost minus depreciation. A 46-year-old building, and specifically its components (roof, walls, plumbing, etc), have depreciated to the point that the building would essentially be worthless. The difference with property is that its market value (what a realtor tells you it's worth) is different from its Actual Cash Value. If I have a 30 year old house and the roof has a 30 year lifespan (according to insurance adjusters) and I was dumb enough to insure at ACV, my roof could cave in and I wouldn't get a dime for the repair. So you insure at Replacement Cost, because even though your building has depreciated, you can't rebuild for a depreciated number or even the original cost. Most property policies include an inflation guard provision, which increases the value by about 4% a year automatically. MSU and its insurance carrier are smart enough to know that it would cost a couple million bucks to rebuild each of those gyms with materials of a like kind and quality, so they were insured at a value sufficient to rebuild. And the insurance company (not sure who it is) will pay out the stated value of the buildings, assuming they assess it as a total loss, which they almost have to do I'd think.
The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.
The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.
I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.
-
- BobcatNation Team Captain
- Posts: 732
- Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:04 am
Re: South gym roof collapse
Does anyone know if the structure between the 2 gyms is at risk of collapse. It appears to be of the same design and materials.
Even if it is not at risk would MSU demolish it and rebuild as part of the gym rebuilds?
I think that part of the structure contains the racquetball and indoor tennis courts.
Even if it is not at risk would MSU demolish it and rebuild as part of the gym rebuilds?
I think that part of the structure contains the racquetball and indoor tennis courts.
- Hawks86
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 10609
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: MT
Re: South gym roof collapse
http://www.montana.edu/communications/s ... InfH5oMqXQIs the university worried about the Upper Gym?
Right now, the entire fitness center is closed for evaluation and safety purposes. The Upper Gym, located between the North and South gyms, was built at the same time as the other gyms and is a similar construction type. Those factors make it a higher risk than the remainder of the fitness center complex. The future of the Upper Gym will be discussed after the insurance investigation is complete and the entire building can be fully evaluated for structural integrity.
"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."
- Cledus
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 5471
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:18 pm
- Location: Billings Heights
Re: South gym roof collapse
Given my own background, I was trying to reason my way through this. I was thinking proceeds resulting from a replacement cost policy would be limited to the exact same design, or an equivalent design, which is implied to have no significant structural improvements.kennethnoisewater wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:14 amFirst of all, there's no way MSU insures any of their buildings at Actual Cash Value (ACV). Actual Cash Value is Replacement Cost minus depreciation. A 46-year-old building, and specifically its components (roof, walls, plumbing, etc), have depreciated to the point that the building would essentially be worthless. The difference with property is that its market value (what a realtor tells you it's worth) is different from its Actual Cash Value. If I have a 30 year old house and the roof has a 30 year lifespan (according to insurance adjusters) and I was dumb enough to insure at ACV, my roof could cave in and I wouldn't get a dime for the repair. So you insure at Replacement Cost, because even though your building has depreciated, you can't rebuild for a depreciated number or even the original cost. Most property policies include an inflation guard provision, which increases the value by about 4% a year automatically. MSU and its insurance carrier are smart enough to know that it would cost a couple million bucks to rebuild each of those gyms with materials of a like kind and quality, so they were insured at a value sufficient to rebuild. And the insurance company (not sure who it is) will pay out the stated value of the buildings, assuming they assess it as a total loss, which they almost have to do I'd think.
The adjusters' response will be interesting, because there could be (probably is) damage to adjacent buildings. The insurance payout could be in the 10's of millions.
The policy will also pay for debris removal, which will be no small task or expense. And there may be a Business Income/Extra Expense provision on the policy. That may be hard to prove that there is a substantial amount of income lost from the buildings being unusable but I am sure they'll find a way. The extra expense could come in if they need to rent gyms from other facilities in town for intramurals or aerobics classes or something.
I've made a handful of assumptions here regarding what kind of decisions MSU has made regarding insurance, but these are based on pretty standard practices.
So, I may be way off here, but if we assume MSU decides to rebuild with the exact same design that insurance would cover the entire cost of rebuild, even if such a rebuild cost twice as much AND was adjusted for inflation.
What I am guessing will happen is there will be a new design with structural improvements and insurance proceeds will simply reduce the out of pocket cost of rebuilding to the extent of what would have been the replacement cost.
UM is the university equivalent of Axe Body Spray and essential oils.
- Hawks86
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 10609
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:27 pm
- Location: MT
Re: South gym roof collapse
Also sounds like good news for Romney.
https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
"I'm a Bobcat forever its in my soul..."
- catsrback76
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 8743
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:18 am
- Location: Sitting on the hill looking at the Adriatic!
Re: South gym roof collapse
Sometimes it takes something like this to revisit the prevailing wisdom. So, flat roofed buildings in a snow zone climate might NOT be the best?Hawks86 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm
Also sounds like good news for Romney.https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
-
- Golden Bobcat
- Posts: 9714
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:41 pm
- Location: Clancy, MT
Re: South gym roof collapse
That was my initial thought when this happened... But I drive down the street in town here, and virtually every commercial building has a flat roof, including huge ones like Wal-Mart and Costco. So flat roofs can't be the sole problem, or we'd see collapses all over the place this year.catsrback76 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:38 amSometimes it takes something like this to revisit the prevailing wisdom. So, flat roofed buildings in a snow zone climate might NOT be the best?Hawks86 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm
Also sounds like good news for Romney.https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
There must have been a design flaw or construction flaw in those particular roofs.
- kennethnoisewater
- BobcatNation Hall of Famer
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:41 pm
- Location: Kalispell, MT
Re: South gym roof collapse
I agree, I don't think it's the end of the world to have a flat roof. Part of the problem is that the big stores can have posts in the middle for support. The North and South gyms have a pretty big span with no support except on the edges. There are gyms all over Montana though, and I'd guess most of them have a flat roof. It scares me to think of how many people (especially kids) can be in those at any given time. I hope this opens a lot of eyes with school boards and building owners all over the place about getting flat roofs checked out on older buildings.91catAlum wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:18 amThat was my initial thought when this happened... But I drive down the street in town here, and virtually every commercial building has a flat roof, including huge ones like Wal-Mart and Costco. So flat roofs can't be the sole problem, or we'd see collapses all over the place this year.catsrback76 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:38 amSometimes it takes something like this to revisit the prevailing wisdom. So, flat roofed buildings in a snow zone climate might NOT be the best?Hawks86 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:04 pm
Also sounds like good news for Romney.https://kxlh.com/news/montana-politics/ ... -projects/Renovation of Romney Hall into more classroom space at MSU. The $32 million project has been a priority for the university system for several years. Under HB652, $25 million of the cost would be funded by bonds and the remainder by private funds.
There must have been a design flaw or construction flaw in those particular roofs.