Flood Ins. Required?

I'm reading pg 11 of the new flood guidelines and need to be sure I understand correctly. House is NOT in a flood zone, but a corner of the back deck is. The way I read this on pg. 11 under (c)(1) is that although the deck normally would not be covered, since it's a part of the house and in a flood zone, our customer will have to have flood insurance. Is that right? I'm really hoping not - I don't want to have this argument with the loan officer. Thank you!

You have to look at the definition of "structure" and I don't think a deck meets the criteria.

Post deleted by Pizza Queen

My understanding has been that while the deck itself is not insurable, if the footing of the deck is in a flood zone, and the deck is attached to the hbuilding, then the deck essentially drags the building into the flood zone.

Don't quote me though.

Actually upon further thought, if the deck is attached to the house, yet the house is not in a flood zone but "part" of the deck is, I find it hard to believe that the house wouldn't be in a flood zone. As I state above, what are you basing this on? Your flood determination provider or a survey/plot plan or an appraisal?

Determination and maps clearly show house is not, but the survey shows a triangular piece of the deck is in the flood zone. I didn't believe it at first either. Survey is being give to the flood det. company just to make sure.

And, yes, the deck is attached to the house. I didn't think it would be required at first either until I read that paragraph on page 11.

Just Jay is right. The deck drags the structure into the SFHA. The deck is part of the structure, and if any part of the structure is in a SFHA then the entire structure is considered to be in the SFHA.

I got one right!

Me, too! Yeah! That doesn't seem to be happening much lately, so I'm happy now (at least until I convey this to the loan officer - this is one of our really big customers...blah blah blah)!

Just to drag this out to the Nth degree, what if the deck is not attached to the dwelling? That is, it stands on its own footings, but is detached from the building (there is an actual gap between them).

This is pure speculation but I would say the deck is then not a part of the structure therefore no part of the structure is located in the SFHA. But I would also venture a guess that if the deck is connected to the structure by a common element between them...such as a concrete patio or a walkway....that would cause damage to the structure or the structure's foundation if washed away by a flood then the structure could/would be deemed to be in the SFHA.

Thanks, Dan. I'm envisioning a deck I saw recently that is on its own footings, and the deck and footings are not connected in any way to the dwelling. The deck is about two inches from the dwelling. I wasn't able to ask the homeowner why the two are not attached, but I did check the deck for lateral reinforcement in its underpinnings. It stood ten feet above grade.

Opening this thread back up....

Have a commercial metal building on a concrete slab - appraiser appraised the structure separately - appraising the "building structure" at one square foot price (cost approach) and the "covered area" at a lower square foot price (cost approach). The "covered area" is a porch for lack of a better word - metal building on concrete slab where roof extends out with columns supporting down into the concrete slab creating a "covered area" roughly 3,750 sf "covered area" with a cost approach of $56,000. IMO this is part of the structure and therefore must be covered under a flood insurance policy (same policy as the actual structure that has a cost approach value of $192,000....

Thoughts?? Or please confirm.

metal building on concrete slab where roof extends out with columns supporting down into the concrete slab creating a "covered area"

Based on my visualization of the building from your description it would appear the covered area would be part of the building.