them this meant ultimate death, so some of them began to carry their rodded and 

 unrodded buildings in separate classes, each class being assessed for its own losses, 

 and now nearly every mutual insurance company in the State of Michigan is 

 carrying rodded and unrodded classes, or preparing to do so. The Patrons' Mutual 

 referred to above has been doing so for five years, and its assessments per $1,000 of 

 risk have been as follows : 



During the same five years the assessments of the Protected Company have 



been: 



Year 



Assessment per $1,000 of Risk 



1910 } Together. 



1911 



1912 



1913 



$2 00 



1 30 



1 20 



2 00 



low^A Protected Mutual. 



In Iowa there is also a Protected Company, insuring only rodded buildings. 

 The president, Mr. C. N. Doane, Newton, Iowa, is also president of the Mutual 

 Fire and Tornado Association, insuring in the same vicinity as the Protected Com- 

 pany, and taking both rodded and unrodded risks. In six years this Iowa Protected 

 Mutual has not had a claim due to lightning damage to a rodded building or stock 

 in building. Its total assessment per $1,000 for the last five years has been $8.00, 

 while in the Fire and Tornado the total assessment for the same period has been 

 $14.50, a difference of 44.8 per cent, in favour of the Protected Company. 



Michigan Insurance Rates Average 361/^ Per Cent. Cheaper on Rodded 



Buildings. 



While in Michigan the writer spent two days at Lansing in tne Department 

 of Insurance examining the original reports of ten different companies including 

 the two above mentioned and compiling data therefrom. Previous to 1913 five of 

 them were carrying both rodded and unrodded classes. I find the average assess- 

 ment by these five companies on unrodded buildings is $2.96 per $1,000 of risk. 

 while the average on their rodded buildings is $1.89, showing a difference of 

 $1.07 per $1,000 in favour of the rodded buildings. If we calculate that difference 

 in percentage we find that the assessment on rodded buildings is 36}^ per cent, 

 less than on unrodded ones. Or taking the rodded assessment as the standard, 

 r^en the assessment on the unrodded ones is 56.6 per cent, greater than on the 

 rodded ones. Now this is not theory or science — it is the practical experience ol: 



