I recently post information on my website regarding the new Wind Mitigation changes being proposed.
Interstingly, I recieved this response from Mr. Darius Grimes, who I understand is a participant in the design of these changes.
I pasted his remarks below.
Darius H Grimes CRC, CSI-CDT, CWMI August 29, 2011 at 12:05 pm
You are correct that the industry is recommending this change based on the fact that a 2 nail clip is only slightly better than toe-nail.
We are also recommending reducing the number of nails in a wrap based on new testing from Simpson Stong-Tie. And the opening protection section is being improved to make sure folks with all glazed openings protected are eligable for credits. In addition we are adding languge to make sure these forms are goof for 5 years as long as no material changes have occured to the structure.
Most changes are positive but we are not trying to reduce rates for consumers with this form, that is not the purpose. The puspose is to match eligible credits with the OIR B1-1699 form adopted by the state. The purpose of the state adopting the 2002 Loss Relativities Study, and the Florida Building Code adding recommendations in the code based on the same study, is to harden Florida’s building stock to reduce damage and loss of housing.
Under CFO Sink the MSFH program was twisted for political purpose into an insurance savings program, that program also was supposed to be about hardening homes.
We have a lot of 2 nail clip homes in our area dating back to the late 1950′s when builder first started using them. The intent of form change is not to help or harm consumers, it is to comply with the OIR B1-1699 form, Florida Statutes, and the 2002 Loss Relativities Study developed by Applied Research Associates. This is based on science and research and the intent of credits has always been to incetivise consumers to harden thier homes, not to merely reduce rates based on exisitng features.
Hope this helps.