Excerpt: All U.S. model building codes now require fire sprinklers as a standard feature in new homes.
On September 21st, the International Code Council (ICC) overwhelmingly passed two proposals to modify the International Residential Code (IRC), requiring fire sprinklers in all new homes at their final action hearing in Minneapolis, MN. The first proposal, RB66, added the requirement for fire sprinklers in townhouses that fall within the scope of the IRC, and the second proposal, RB64, added the requirement for one- and two-family dwellings, effective January 1, 2011.

Source: http://www.ircfiresprinkler.org/

"The National Fire Protection Association sponsored a study and reported this will increase costs from $.38 to $3.66 per square foot - averaging out at $1.61 per square foot increase. There may be some insurance discounts but not enough to cover the expense -" http://activerain.com/blogsview/758492/spr...xas-house-what-

Overkill IMO!

 

After a few years, I bet insurance prices for homes with sprinklers will actually be higher than for those without. Even homes that are "saved" from fire by sprinklers will experience extensive water damage, possibly throughout the entire house, and not just to the parts that are affected by the fire. Also, there will be instances of sprinklers that are triggered inadvertently, or leaky sprinklers, or burst pipes, etc, etc.

 

^^Never thought of that.
Good point!

 

[QUOTE=mxt_77,May 22 2009, 01:21 PM] After a few years, I bet insurance prices for homes with sprinklers will actually be higher than for those without.

 

It is completely different in a commercial setting as opposed to residential. Most commercial buildings equipped with fire suppression systems are, at the core, steel and concrete construction, not stick frame wood. With the amount of time that it takes adjusters to come and inspect a home, permanent water damage to the structure has already occurred, making the repair much more expensive.

 

Incorrect sir. Be careful about generalizations. I specliaze in underwriting commercial insurance and you could not be more incorrect.

 

Fire protection systems are used in commercial buildings because they are required by law. They are required by law because of the increased number of lives at risk in the event of a fire. Nobody is going to install a sprinkler system just so they can get an insurance discount.

 

Are you saying the cost increase is $.38 cents? Or the cost is going from 38 cents to $3.66?

I bought a house over 18 months ago that already has this system. Builders have been and are putting them in well before this law takes effect another 19 months for now. My house didn't cost an exorbitant amount of money because it had this system. In fact, I found out that I paid less for my house with this system installed than many others who had a slightly older house without the system, just across the street. On top of that, my yearly home owner's insurance cost is $430 dollars. The other thing that people need to know too is that these systems are localized. If a fire breaks out in the house, only the sprinklers close to the fire deploy, not all of them in the entire house (this is a common myth spread by Hollywood movies).

This is not that big a deal.

 

It's been required where I live years now. Nothing major.

 

Nothing major except for the expense you mean.

If you add a sprinkler system you have to take away something else unless you raise the price. What are people willing to give up? That oversized garage?

The part that scares me about that is retro fits. I'll bet many municipalities will require you to retro fit a system into your whole house when you want to get a permit to do work on your home. Not that I'd get a permit unless it was very visible from the road.