Method and apparatus for rating geographical areas using meteorological conditions5839113Abstract A method and apparatus for rating geographical areas based on the severity and/or frequency of different meteorological conditions. To determine the rating of a geographical area, raw data information from meteorological charts is gathered. The raw data scale for each meteorological condition is divided into ranges. The distribution of the geographical areas over the entire scale is determined. Individual rating factors are assigned to each of the ranges based on the distribution of the geographical areas throughout the scale. The individual rating factors are preferably selected such that the incremental change in the individual rating factors between ranges is preferably proportional to the incremental change in the number of geographical areas between the same ranges. All the individual rating factors for a single geographical area are used to calculate a cumulative rating factor for the geographical area. The cumulative rating factors of all the geographical areas are compared to provide a ranking of the geographical areas. The ranking relates to the risk potential in each geographical area based on the meteorological conditions. The resulting ranking of geographical areas is used to determine the insurability of a structure in a geographical area. Claims We claim:
______________________________________
0 to 70 MPH = -0.056
71 to 75 MPH = 0.000
76 to 80 MPH = 0.056
81 to 85 MPH = 0.069
86 to 90 MPH = 0.083
91 to 95 MPH = 0.166
96 to 100 MPH = 0.332
101 to 105 MPH = 0.664
106 to 110 MPH = 1.328
111 to 115 MPH = 1.994
116 to 120 MPH = 2.660
121 to 125 MPH = 3.316
126 to 130 MPH = 3.982
131 to 135 MPH = 4.648
136 to 140 MPH = 5.314
>140 MPH = 6.002
______________________________________
10. The method of claim 1 wherein one of the meteorological conditions is tornadoes. 11. The method of claim 10 wherein the individual rating factor for tornadoes is between -0.056 to 2.656. 12. The method of claim 10 wherein the severity and/or frequency of tornadoes in the geographical area is determined based on the number of tornadoes in the geographical area per 10,000 square miles averaged over the past ten years. 13. The method of claim 12 wherein the ranges of severity and/or frequency of the tornadoes are:
______________________________________
0.000-0.499
0.500-0.999
1.000-1.999
2.000-2.999
3.000-3.999
4.000-4.999
5.000-5.999
6.000-6.999
7.000-7.999
8.000-8.999
9.000-9.999
.gtoreq.10.000
______________________________________
14. The method of claim 13 wherein the individual rating factors for each range of severity and/or frequency of tornadoes are:
______________________________________
0.000-0.499 = -0.056
0.500-0.999 = -0.028
1.000-1.999 = 0.000
2.000-2.999 = 0.056
3.000-3.999 = 0.069
4.000-4.999 = 0.083
5.000-5.999 = 0.166
6.000-6.999 = 0.332
7.000-7.999 = 0.644
8.000-8.999 = 1.328
9.000-9.999 = 1.992
.gtoreq.10.000 = 2.656
______________________________________
15. The method of claim 1 wherein one of the meteorological conditions is lightning. 16. The method of claim 15 wherein the individual rating factor for lightning is between -0.056 to 1.157. 17. The method of claim 15 wherein the severity and/or frequency of lightning of the geographical area is determined based on the number of thunderstorm days per year in the geographical area. 18. The method of claim 17 wherein the ranges of severity and/or frequency of lightning are:
______________________________________
0.000-0.999 =
0-10 Thunderstorm days per year
1.000-1.999 =
11-20 Thunderstorm days per year
2.000-2.999 =
21-30 Thunderstorm days per year
3.000-3.999 =
31-40 Thunderstorm days per year
4.000-4.999 =
41-50 Thunderstorm days per year
5.000-5.999 =
51-60 Thunderstorm days per year
6.000-6.999 =
61-70 Thunderstorm days per year
7.000-7.999 =
71-80 Thunderstorm days per year
8.000-8.999 =
81-90 Thunderstorm days per year
9.000-9.999 =
91-100 Thunderstorm days per year
10.000+ = 101-110 Thunderstorm days per year
______________________________________
19. The method of claim 18 wherein the individual rating factors for each range of severity and/or frequency of lightning are:
______________________________________
0.000-0.999 =
-0.056
1.000-1.999 =
-0.028
2.000-2.999 =
-0.028
3.000-3.999 =
0.000
4.000-4.999 =
0.056
5.000-5.999 =
0.069
6.000-6.999 =
0.083
7.000-7.999 =
0.097
8.000-8.999 =
0.111
9.000-9.999 =
1.139
10.000+ =
1.157
______________________________________
20. The method of claim 1 wherein one of the meteorological conditions is earthquakes. 21. The method of claim 20 wherein the individual rating factor for earthquakes is between 0.010 to 2.000. 22. The method of claim 20 wherein the ranges of severity and/or frequency of earthquakes are:
______________________________________
0.000-0.999
1.000-1.999
2.000-2.999
3.000+
______________________________________
23. The method of claim 22 wherein the individual rating factors for each range of severity and/or frequency of earthquakes are:
______________________________________
>0.000 = 0.010
>1.000 = 0.025
>2.000 = 1.000
>3.000 = 2.000
______________________________________
24. The method of claim 1 wherein one of the meterological conditions is hurricanes. 25. The method of claim 24 wherein there are five ranges of severity and/or frequency for hurricanes. 26. The method of claim 25 wherein the five ranges of severity and/or frequency for hurricanes are:
______________________________________
74-95 MPH
96-110 MPH
111-130 MPH
131-155 MPH
>156MPH
______________________________________
27. The method of claim 26 wherein the rating factors for each of the ranges of severities and/or frequencies for hurricanes are:
______________________________________
74-95 MPH = 0.500
96-110 MPH = 1.000
111-130 MPH = 1.500
131-155 MPH = 2.000
>156MPH = 2.500
______________________________________
28. The method of claim 27 wherein the individual rating factor for each of the geographical areas for hurricanes is determined by multiplying the number of hurricanes in each range of severity and/or frequency by the rating factors for that range and then adding the results for all the ranges together. 29. The method of claim 1 wherein a weight associated with each of the individual rating factors for each meteorological condition is adjustable. 30. The method of claim 1 wherein the ranges of the severities and/or frequencies are selected such that the geographical areas are evenly distributed throughout the range. 31. The method of claim 3 wherein the cumulative rating factor for each of the geographical area is calculated using the equation R.sub.N =X.sub.W F.sub.N (W)+X.sub.T F.sub.N (T)+X.sub.L F.sub.N (L)+X.sub.E F.sub.N (E)+X.sub.H F.sub.N (H) wherein N is the geographical area R.sub.N is the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (W) is a wind rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (T) is a tornado rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (L) is a lightning rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (E) is the earthquake rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (H) is a hurricane rating factor for the geographical area and wherein X.sub.W, X.sub.T, X.sub.L, X.sub.E and X.sub.H are weighting factors for each of the meteorological conditions. 32. The method of claim 1 wherein the geographical areas are counties in all 50 states of the United States. 33. The method of claim 1 wherein the lower the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area the lower the risk of damage in the geographical area as a result of the meteorological conditions. 34. The method of claim 1 wherein a chart having terrain characteristics of the geographical areas is provided and wherein a terrain factor is determined from the chart for the geographical area and wherein the terrain factor is used with the cumulative rating factor in ranking the geographical areas. 35. The method of claim 31 wherein X.sub.W, X.sub.T, X.sub.L, X.sub.E and X.sub.H are equal. 36. The method for determining the insurability of a physical structure located in a geographical area, which comprises: (a) providing a rating database in a computer having a cumulative rating factor for a plurality of geographical areas wherein the cumulative rating factor is calculated using the equation R.sub.N =X.sub.W F.sub.N (W)+X.sub.T F.sub.N (T)+X.sub.L F.sub.N (L)+X.sub.E F.sub.N (E)+X.sub.H F.sub.N (H) wherein N is the geographical area R.sub.N is the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (W) is a wind rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (T) is a tornado rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (L) is a lightning rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (E) is the earthquake rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (H) is a hurricane rating factor for the geographical area and wherein X.sub.W, X.sub.T, X.sub.L, X.sub.E, and X.sub.H are weighting factors for each of the meteorological condition; (b) accessing the rating database to retrieve the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area; (c) providing a rating chart showing the insurability for the cumulative rating factors; and (d) comparing the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area with the rating chart to determine the insurability of the structure located in the geographical area. 37. The method of claim 36 wherein X.sub.W, X.sub.T, X.sub.L, X.sub.E and X.sub.H are equal to 1. 38. The method of claim 36 wherein X.sub.W, X.sub.T, X.sub.L, X.sub.E and X.sub.H are different values in the equation. 39. The method of claim 36 wherein a client database can be generated in the computer to provide a list of clients associated with the geographical areas. 40. The method of claim 39 wherein the rating database is accessed using the client database to determine the insurability of a structure owned by a client in the geographical area. 41. The method of claim 36 wherein a liability database can be generated having a gross liability factor and a net liability factor for the geographical areas wherein the gross liability factor and the limited liability factor are considered with the cumulative rating factor to determine the insurability of the structure in the geographical area. 42. The method of claim 36 wherein the database is formed using a method for ranking geographical areas based on a plurality of meteorological conditions, which includes: providing a meteorological chart, information of the geographical areas for each of the meteorological conditions to be ranked, each showing a severity and/or frequency of the meteorological condition in each of the geographical areas; selecting ranges of the severities and/or frequencies of the meteorological condition for all of the geographical areas; calculating individual rating factors for each of the ranges of severities and/or frequencies of the meteorological condition; determining the individual rating factor for each of the geographical areas for each of the meteorological conditions; and calculating a cumulative rating factor for each of the geographical areas using the equation. 43. The method of claim 36 wherein the lower the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area the greater the insurability. 44. The method for determining the insurability of a physical structure located in a geographical area from a database, which comprises: (a) providing a plurality of charts, each chart having information relating to a severity and/or frequency of a meteorological condition for a plurality of geographical areas; (b) selecting a range of rating factors representing the severities and/or frequencies of each meteorological condition for the plurality of geographical areas; (c) calculating a rating factor for each geographical area for each meteorological condition; (d) combining the rating factors for each of the meteorological conditions for each of the geographical areas to provide a cumulative rating factor for each of the geographical areas; (e) inputting the geographical areas and the corresponding cumulative rating factors into a computer to form the database; (f) forming a chart showing an amount of for the cumulative rating factors; (g) retrieving the cumulative rating factor from the database for the geographical area where the structure is located; and (h) comparing the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area with the chart to determine the amount of for the geographical area. 45. A media operational for use in storing a database for use in a method for determining the insurability of a physical structure located in a geographical area, which comprises: providing a database on the media having a cumulative rating factor for a plurality of geographical areas wherein the cumulative rating factor is calculated using the equation R.sub.N =X.sub.W F.sub.N (W)+X.sub.T F.sub.N (T)+X.sub.L F.sub.N (L)+X.sub.E F.sub.N (E)+X.sub.H F.sub.N (H) wherein N is the geographical area R.sub.N is the rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (W) is a wind rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (T) is a tornado rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (L) is a lightning rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (E) is the earthquake rating factor for the geographical area, F.sub.N (H) is a hurricane rating factor for the geographical area and X.sub.W, X.sub.T, X.sub.L, X.sub.E and X.sub.H are weighting factors for each of the meteorological conditions; accessing the database to retrieve the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area; providing a rating chart showing the insurability for the cumulative rating factors; and comparing the cumulative rating factor for the geographical area with the rating chart to determine the insurability of the structure located in the geographical area. Description MICROFICHE APPENDIX
TABLE 1
______________________________________
WIND SPEED
WIND INDIVIDUAL NUMBER
SPEED RATING OF
MPH FACTOR COUNTIES
______________________________________
0-70 -0.056 1388
71-75 0.000 469
76-80 0.056 648
81-85 0.069 318
86-90 0.083 107
91-95 0.166 57
96-100 0.332 70
101-105 0.664 30
106-110 1.328 11
111-115 1.994 2
116-120 2.660 1
121-125 3.316 0
126-130 3.982 0
131-135 4.648 0
136-140 5.314 0
>140 6.002 0
______________________________________
To determine the individual tornado rating factors for the counties N, as with wind speed, in the preferred embodiment, a normalized distribution of the counties N over the raw data tornado scale is calculated. The meteorological chart showing the raw data tornado scale rate the severity and/or frequency of tornadoes based on a scale of 0 to 9 tornadoes in a given county N per 10,000 square miles, averaged over the previous 10 years (FIG. 3). The scale classifies tornadoes into 11 classes (0, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). The classes directly correspond to the number of tornadoes. However, in the current raw data tornado scale none of the counties N have a classification of 2, 4, 6, or 8. However, this may change when the chart is updated. In addition, the computer program is written to allow for decimal error when inputting data. In the preferred embodiment, the computer program would display an error message if appropriate range or class of raw data was not correctly inputted. Preferably, the same type of error detection system would be used as a check for all data input. The outlying counties N which are not effected by tornadoes are not included in the calculation of the distribution of counties N over the raw data tornado scale. The raw data tornado scale is divided into ranges based on the distribution of the counties N over the entire scale. In the preferred embodiment, each raw data class of tornado represents one range. Preferably, an additional class of greater than or equal to 10 is included in order to allow for expansion of the classification in the future. Therefore, currently there are no counties N having a raw data tornado classification of greater than or equal to 10. The individual tornado rating factors are then assigned to each of the ranges. The individual tornado rating factors range between -0.056 and 2.656 and are calculated such that the incremental change in the individual tornado rating factor between ranges is proportional to the incremental change in the number of counties N between the ranges. The raw data tornado classification for each county N is then compared to the ranges to determine the specific individual tornado rating factor for each county N. In the preferred embodiment, counties N least effected by tornadoes receive an individual tornado rating factor of -0.056. The average raw data tornado rating is 2.39 which receives an individual tornado rating factor of 0.056. Table 2 shows the ranges and classes of the raw data tornadoes scale, the individual tornado rating factor for each range and class and the number of counties N in each range and class.
TABLE 2
______________________________________
TORNADOES
INDIVIDUAL NUMBER
RATING OF
CLASS TORNADOES FACTOR COUNTIES
______________________________________
0 0.000-0.499 -0.056 400
.5 0.500-0.999 -0.028 138
1 1.000-1.999 0.000 964
2 2.000-2.999 0.056 0
3 3.000-3.999 0.069 953
4 4.000-4.999 0.083 0
5 5.000-5.999 0.166 526
6 6.000-6.999 0.332 0
7 7.000-7.999 0.644 95
8 8.000-8.999 1.328 0
9 9.000-9.999 1.992 25
10 .gtoreq.10.000
2.656 0
______________________________________
In the preferred embodiment, the meteorological chart showing the severity and/or frequency of lightning rate the meteorological condition based on the average number of thunderstorm days per year averaged over the previous 10 years (FIG. 4). The number of thunderstorm days per year ranges from 0 to approximately 110 throughout all the counties N in the United States. The number of thunderstorm days per year is divided into twelve (12) ranges. Each range is assigned a raw data lightning class from 0 to 11 (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). The distribution of counties N over the raw data thunderstorm scale is then calculated. Next, each of the raw data thunderstorm ranges is assigned an individual lightning rating factor. Each class represents one range for purposes of assigning the individual lightning rating factors. In the preferred embodiment, the individual lightning rating factors are between -0.056 and 1.157 and are calculated such that the incremental change in the individual lightning rating factor between classes is proportional to the incremental change in the number of counties N between the classes. The specific raw data lightning class of each county N is then used to determine the specific individual lightning rating factor for each county N. Counties N having greater than 110 thunderstorm days per year are outlying counties N and are grouped together in Class 11 which corresponds to an individual lightning rating factor of 1.157. Counties N which are uneffected by lightning are grouped together in Class 0 which corresponds to an individual lightning rating factor of -0.056. In the preferred embodiment, the average raw data lightning class for the counties N is 4.926. Therefore, preferably most counties N will have an individual lightning rating factor of 0.056. Table 3 shows the classes of the raw data thunderstorm scale and the ranges of thunderstorm days per year to which each class corresponds, the individual lightning rating factor associated with each class and the number of counties N in each class.
TABLE 3
______________________________________
LIGHTNING
INDIVIDUAL NUMBER
THUNDERSTORM RATING OF
CLASS DAYS PER YEAR FACTOR COUNTIES
______________________________________
0 0-5 -0.056 81
1 6-10 -0.028 80
2 11-20 -0.028 95
3 21-30 0.000 235
4 31-40 0.056 600
5 41-50 0.069 870
6 51-60 0.083 707
7 61-70 0.097 229
8 71-80 0.111 156
9 81-90 0.139 31
10 91-100 1.157 8
11 101-110 1.157 9
______________________________________
The raw data earthquake scale expresses the severity and/or frequency of earthquakes in zones. The zones have been established based on several hundred years of history and geological information on significant earthquakes and are the standards used to describe the severity and/or frequency of earthquakes. The zones describe different levels of damage potential from earthquakes. There are four zones (0, 1, 2 and 3). Each zone represents one range for determining the individual earthquake rating factors. To determine the individual earthquake rating factor for each county N, the standard distribution of counties N over the raw data scale is first calculated. The individual earthquake rating factor for each zone is calculated such that the incremental change in the individual rating factor F.sub.N () between zones is proportional to the incremental change in the number of counties N between the same zones. A majority of the counties N (1965 of the 3103) have a zone classification of 1 which corresponds to an individual rating factor F.sub.N () of 0.010. The meteorological condition chart showing all the counties N is used to determine the zone for each county N (FIG. 5). Counties N not effected by earthquakes are all given an individual rating factor F.sub.N () of zero (0). Table 4 shows the four zones including a description of the type of earthquake activity anticipated with each zone, the individual earthquake rating factor for each zone and the number of counties N in each zone.
TABLE 4
______________________________________
EARTHQUAKE
INDIVIDUAL NUMBER
RATING OF
ZONE FACTOR COUNTIES
______________________________________
0 - Seismic potential is not
0.000 234
expected
1 - Minor seismic potential is
0.010 1965
expected
2 - Moderate seismic potential
0.025 665
is expected
3 - Major seismic potential is
1.000 237
expected
______________________________________
The individual hurricane rating factors for hurricanes are determined differently than the previous four meteorological conditions. The computer program (HADD) used for determining the individual hurricane rating factors for each county N is included as part of the specification. In the raw data hurricane scale as derived from the meteorological chart (FIG. 6), individual hurricanes are divided into classes depending upon the severity and/or frequency of the hurricane. These classes are well known and are the standard used for classifying hurricanes. There are five (5) classes (C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5). The meteorological chart showing hurricanes list the number of hurricanes of each different class occurring in each specific county N. Thus, the meteorological chart shows both the frequency and the severity and/or frequency of the hurricanes. To determine the individual hurricane rating factors, each class of hurricane is first assigned a partial rating factor. The partial rating factors preferably range from 0.500 to 2.500 and increase in even intervals of 0.500. Preferably, the selection of the partial rating factors is not based on the distribution of counties N throughout the raw data hurricane scale and is not based on the incremental change in the number of counties N in each class. Table 5 shows the classes of hurricanes with a brief description of the amount of damage, inland surge and the wind speed expected for each class of hurricane and the partial rating factor associated with each class.
TABLE 5
______________________________________
HURRICANE
PARTIAL
RATING
CLASS FACTOR
______________________________________
C1 - No damage to structures.
0.500
Wind speed 74-95 mph
C2 - Minor damage to structures.
1.000
Wind speed 96-110 mph.
C3 - Moderate damage to structures.
1.500
Storm surge up to 6 miles inland. Wind
speed 111-130 mph.
C4 - Severe damage to structures.
2.000
Storm surge up to 8 miles inland. Wind
speed 131-155 mph.
C5 - Major damage to structures. Storm
2.500
surge up to 10 miles inland.
Wind speed .gtoreq.156 mph.
______________________________________
To calculate the individual hurricane rating factor for a specific county N, the number of hurricanes occurring in the county N for each class, is multiplied by the partial rating factor for each class, respectively. The resulting values are then added together to calculate the individual hurricane rating factor for each county N. The meteorological condition information database includes the raw data information taken directly from the charts for all the counties N as well as the cumulative rating factor R for each county N. The cumulative rating factor R for each county N is calculated using the following formula: R.sub.N =X.sub.W F.sub.N (W)+X.sub.T F.sub.N (T)+X.sub.L F.sub.N (L)+X.sub.E F.sub.N (E)+X.sub.H F.sub.N (H) In the above equation, N is the county identifier, R.sub.N is the cumulative rating factor R for the county N, X is the weighting factor for the specific meteorological condition and F.sub.N () is the individual rating factor for the meteorological condition in county N; more precisely, X.sub.W is the weighting factor with regard to wind speed, X.sub.T is the weighting factor with regard to tornadoes, X.sub.L is the weighting factor with regard to lightning, X.sub.E is the weighting factor with regard to earthquakes; X.sub.H is the weighting factor for hurricanes; F.sub.N (W) is the individual wind speed rating factor; F.sub.N (T) is the individual tornado rating factor; F.sub.N (L) is the individual lightning rating factor; F.sub.N (E) is the individual earthquake rating factor and F.sub.N (H) is the individual hurricane rating factor. The cumulative rating factor R allows the user to consider all the meteorological conditions when making a determination and also allows the user to compare ratings of different counties N on a 1:1 scale based on all the meteorological conditions. In the preferred embodiment, the individual rating factors F.sub.N () of wind speed, tornado and lightning are all calculated so that for each separate meteorological condition, the individual rating factor F.sub.N () for counties N falling within the average range for the meteorological condition have the same individual rating factor F.sub.N (). In the preferred embodiment, the individual rating factor F.sub.N () for counties N falling within the average range for wind speed, tornadoes and lightning is 0.056. The method and apparatus can be adapted to accommodate the needs of a particular user. The database can be narrowed to only include the counties N in which the user operates. Further, the calculation of the cumulative rating factor R can be adjusted by adjusting the weighting factors X assigned to each meteorological condition. In the preferred embodiment, the weighting factor X is 1 for all the meteorological conditions. Therefore, each of the meteorological conditions accounts for 1/5 or 20% of the cumulative rating factor R. However, the weighting factors can be changed in order to give more weight to specific meteorological conditions as deemed necessary by the user. In the preferred embodiment, the weighting factors for each meteorological condition are the same for each county N. By adjusting the weighting factors X, the cumulative rating factor R is able to reflect a rating where the meteorological conditions are not all considered equal. For instance, those users located on the east coast may want the cumulative rating factor R to more heavily reflect the effects of hurricanes in the counties N. This would be accomplished by assigning a weighting factor to hurricanes X.sub.H of >1. Thus, the individual rating factor F.sub.N (H) for hurricanes would count for more than 20% of the cumulative rating factor R. Contrastly, those users who do not consider hurricanes when calculating would assign a weighting factor of X.sub.H =0 for hurricanes. Thus, hurricanes would not be included in the cumulative rating factor R and would play no part in the rating determination. In the preferred embodiment, the cumulative rating factor R has a range of -0.17 to 12.97. Preferably, for the 3001 counties currently there are 261 counties with a ranking less than 0, 726 Counties with a ranking between 0 and 0.099, 1,523 Counties with a ranking between 0.1 and 0.75, 176 Counties with a ranking between 0.76 and 1.0, 286 Counties with a ranking between 1.001 and 3.0, 101 Counties with a ranking between 3.001 and 7.0, 18 Counties with a ranking between 7.001 and 10.0 and 10 Counties with a ranking greater than 10.001. However, the range will fluctuate as the meteorological condition information database is updated each year and as the cumulative rating factor R equation is customized for a particular user. In the preferred embodiment, the 50 percentile cumulative rating factor R, after duplicates are removed, is 1.75. FIG. 22 shows the percentage of counties N verses the cumulative rating factors R. FIG. 23 gives a listing of number of counties N in various ranges of cumulative rating factors R. In the preferred embodiment, the meteorological condition information database also contains information on the terrain of the county N and the number of freeze days per year for each county N. The terrain has the following rating scale: F--Flat land. Characterized by changes in ground elevation above mean sea level of 1000 feet or less in a 20 mile radius. H--Hilly. Characterized by changes in ground elevation above means sea level of up to 2000 feet in a 20 mile radius. R--Rolling. Characterized by changes in ground elevation above means sea level of up to 1000 feet over a 20 mile radius. M--Mountainous. Characterized by changes in ground elevation of up to 1000 feet in a six mile radius. T--High Mountainous. Characterized by drastic changes in ground elevation of up to 5000 feet in a 20 mile radius. However, the terrain and the freeze day listings are not used in the calculation of the cumulative rating factor R. Further, the database can also contain information on the population of each county N. The terrain, freeze days and population information is preferably displayed on the output unit 104 along with the cumulative rating factor R and the raw data information and can be used to decide the overall rating of the county N. Preferably, the client database and the liability database are already formed and in use by the user for other aspects of its business prior to implementation of the system 100. The method and apparatus of the present invention preferably interfaces with the existing client and liability databases of the user. However, the client database and the liability database can be formed specifically for use in the present system 100. In the preferred embodiment, the client database includes a list of all the clients of the user including relevant data for each client. In particular, the database includes the clients name, address, location of insured property by county, amount of insured property and amount of insurance on the property. Preferably, the liability database includes the gross and net limits of liability held by the user in each county N. In an alternative embodiment, a liability database is not used. IN USE In the preferred embodiment, the method and apparatus are used to determine the ratings of different geographical areas or counties N based on the severity and/or frequency of several different meteorological conditions. The ratings of the geographical areas or counties N are then used to determine the risk potential in a certain geographical area N due to meteorological conditions. In the preferred embodiment, the risk potential is then used to decide whether or not or for how much to insure a physical structure in a specific geographical area or county N. However, the method and apparatus could also be used by tourism and recreation bureaus, architects, engineers, communication services, government units, planning and urban developers, agricultural services, farmers and industries particularly to plan plant locations. To use the method and apparatus to determine the rating of a county N or other geographical area N, the raw data charts representing each meteorological condition are compiled (FIGS. 2 to 6). Next, the raw data information from the charts indicating the severity and/or frequency of the meteorological conditions in each county N is retrieved from the charts into the meteorological condition information database. Next, the raw data information is manipulated as described above for each of the meteorological conditions to determine the individual rating factor F.sub.N () for each meteorological condition for each county N. Next, all the individual rating factors F.sub.N () for a single county N are calculated together to get the cumulative rating factor R for that county N. The cumulative rating factor R is then stored along with the raw data information for each county N in the meteorological condition information database. The meteorological condition information database is stored in the storage media 108 used with the meteorological condition information system 100. In the preferred embodiment, the client database and the liability database are provided on a separate storage media 110 which is also part of the meteorological information system 100. In the preferred embodiment, the method and apparatus uses a Windows based program to interface with the user. Preferably, the computer program is written as a series of subprograms. The computer program is preferably written using a developers tool such as FOXPRO.RTM. manufactured by MICROSOFT.RTM.. The program is included as Appendix B. FIGS. 6 to 21 show the various screens which the computer program creates. To use the system 100, the user runs the computer program such that the start up screen 10 appears (FIG. 7). In the preferred embodiment, the program automatically moves to the opening screen 12 after the start up screen 10 appears for approximately 5 seconds. Preferably, the opening screen 12 has three selection buttons, the County Level Climatological Data button 14, the Client Level Data button 16 and the Exit button 18 (FIG. 3). The Exit button 18 is self-explanatory and allows the user to exit the program. The Client Level Data button 16 allows the user to enter the client information database. FIG. 9 shows the client information screen 20 for the client information database. When adding new clients, the user merely fills in the blanks 22 on the screen 20. The user can also use the various search buttons 24 on the top of the screen 20 to search for, review and revise existing records. The client information screen 20 also has a County Level Climatological Data button 14 and a Net and Gross Limitation Data button 26. The Net and Gross Limitation Data button 26 opens the gross and net limits screen 28 (FIG. 10). The screen 28 allows the user to search, review and revise information in the liability database for each client. The gross and net limits screen 28 has a Return button 30 which returns the user to the previous screen which is preferably the client information screen 20. The County Level Climatological Data button 14 on either the opening screen 12 or the client information screen 20 allows the user to review the meteorological data for the counties N. FIG. 11 shows the meteorological information screen 32 for reviewing the meteorological data for each county N. From the county screen 32, the user is able to move through the county records in the meteorological condition information database one at a time or is able to search for a new record using the browse buttons 58 at the top of the screen 32. To find a particular county listing, the user selects the find button 60 which opens the browser screen 62 (FIG. 12). The screen 62 allows the user to move through the counties N one at a time in alphabetical order or to go to a specific county N by typing the first letter of the state in which the county N is located. In the preferred embodiment, the meteorological condition information database is arranged in alphabetical order by county and by state. In the preferred embodiment, if an invalid county N is entered, the program displays the closest county N in the same state. If both the state and the county N are incorrect, the program displays the beginning of the county and state list. When the user has located the correct county N, the user selects the county N which opens the meteorological information screen for that county N. The meteorological information screen 32 lists the county N and state (location) and the total accounts the user has in the county N (Total Accounts) 36, the Gross Liability and the Net Liability the user has in the county N (Gross Liability) 38 and (Net Liability) 40, respectively, and the cumulative rating factor R (climatological ranking) 42 for the county N. The meteorological information screen 32 also shows the raw data information ratings for each of the meteorological conditions, namely tornado 44, wind speed 46, lightning 48, earthquake 50 and hurricane 52. The screen 32 also shows the terrain rating 54 and the freeze days rating 56 for the county N. In the preferred embodiment, the screen 32 also has a sample wind speed map button 58 which pulls up a sample wind zones map screen 60 (FIG. 13). The wind zones map screen 60 has a return button 62 to enable the user to return to the meteorological information screen 32. In the preferred embodiment, the user uses the information on the county screen 32, particularly the cumulative rating factor R, to determine the risk potential in that county N. Preferably, the risk potential is then used to determine whether or not or for how much to insure a physical structure in a specific county N. The user is also able to exit from the program from this screen. At any time during the use of the program, the user is able to activate and enter a help program. The user enters the help file by selecting any of the following climatological ranking 42, tornado 44, wind speed 46, lightning 48, earthquake 50, terrain 54, freeze days 56 and hurricane 52. FIGS. 13 and 22 show the various screens of the help program. The help program allows the user to obtain information on any of the meteorological conditions. In particular, the screens show the selected ranges of the raw data information for the meteorological conditions and also information on how the raw data information is calculated for each meteorological condition. It is intended that the foregoing description be only illustrative of the present invention and that the present invention be limited only by the hereinafter appended claims.
______________________________________
************************************************************
*Program Name: RATE.PRG
*Description: This program will calculate a
*climatological factor for every** county in the United
*States. This factor is based upon wind speed.lighting,
*tornados, earthquake, and hurricanes. Hurricanes will
*evalute both frequency and severity of the storm when
*contributing to the factor.
************************************************************
CLOSE DATA
CLEAR MEMORY
PUBLIC LnRate
LnRate = 0
SELECT 0
USE C:.backslash.weather.backslash.exe.backslash.weather ORDER TAG ckey
ALIAS weath
REPLACE ALL crate WITH 0
SCAN
DO CASE
CASE wind <= 70
Lnrate = -.056
CASE wind <= 75
Lnrate = 0
CASE wind <= 80
Lnrate = .056
CASE wind <= 85
Lnrate = .069
CASE wind <= 90
Lnrate = .083
CASE wind <= 95
Lnrate = .166
CASE wind <= 100
Lnrate = .332
CASE wind <= 105
Lnrate = .664
CASE wind <= 110
Lnrate = 1.328
CASE wind <= 115
Lnrate = 1.994
CASE wind <= 120
Lnrate = 2.66
CASE wind <= 125
Lnrate = 3.316
CASE wind <= 130
Lnrate = 3.982
CASE wind <= 135
Lnrate = 4.648
CASE wind <= 140
Lnrate = 5.314
OTHERWISE
LnRate = 6.002
ENDCASE
DO CASE
CASE tornado < .5
Lnrate = Lnrate - .056
CASE tornado < 1
Lnrate = Lnrate - .028
CASE tornado < 2
Lnrate = Lnrate + 0
CASE tornado < 3
Lnrate = Lnrate + .056
CASE tornado < 4
Lnrate = Lnrate + .069
CASE tornado < 5
Lnrate = Lnrate + .083
CASE tornado < 6
Lnrate = Lnrate + .166
CASE tornado < 7
Lnrate = Lnrate + .332
CASE tornado < 8
Lnrate = Lnrate + .644
CASE tornado < 9
Lnrate = Lnrate + 1.328
CASE tornado < 10
Lnrate = Lnrate + 1.992
OTHERWISE
Lnrate = Lnrate + 2.656
ENDCASE
DO CASE
CASE lightning < 1
Lnrate = Lnrate - .056
CASE lightning < 2
Lnrate = Lnrate - .028
CASE lightning < 3
Lnrate = Lnrate - .028
CASE lightning < 4
Lnrate = Lnrate + 0
CASE lightning < 5
Lnrate = Lnrate + .056
CASE lightning < 6
Lnrate = Lnrate + .069
CASE lightning < 7
Lnrate = Lnrate + .083
CASE lightning < 8
Lnrate = Lnrate + .097
CASE lightning < 9
Lnrate = Lnrate + .111
CASE lightning < 10
Lnrate = Lnrate + 1.139
OTHERWISE
Lnrate = Lnrate + 1.157
ENDCASE
DO CASE
CASE earthquake > 3
Lnrate = LnRate + 2
CASE earthquake > 2
LnRate = LnRate + 1
CASE earthquake > 1
LnRate = LnRate + .025
CASE earthquake > 0
LnRate = LnRate + .01
ENDCASE
Lnrate = Lnrate + hurricane
REPLACE crate WITH LnRate
LnRate = 0
ENDSCAN
sele min(crate), max(crate), avg(crate) from weath into
cursor tmp1
** HADD
CLOSE DATA
CLEAR MEMORY
CLEAR ALL
CLOSE ALL
SET DEFA TO C:.backslash.weather.backslash.exe
SELECT 0
USE weather ORDER TAG ckey alias WT
REPLACE ALL hurricane with 0
REPLACE ALL c1 with 0
REPLACE ALL c2 with 0
REPLACE ALL c3 with 0
REPLACE ALL c4 with 0
REPLACE ALL c5 with 0
SELECT 0
USE hurricane ORDER TAG ckey ALIAS HR
SCAN
SELE WT
SEEK HR.ckey
IF FOUND()
REPLACE WT.c1 WITH HR.c1
REPLACE WT.c2 WITH HR.c2
REPLACE WT.c3 WITH HR.c3
REPLACE WT.c4 WITH HR.c4
REPLACE WT.c5 WITH HR.c5
REPLACE WT.hurricane WITH ((HR.c1*.5)+(HR.c2*1)+;
(HR.c3*1.5)+(HR.c4*2)+(HR.c5*2.5))
ENDIF
SELE HR
ENDSCAN
DO RATE.PRG
______________________________________
|
Same subclass Same class Consider this |
||||||||||