i6 BULLETIN 530, U. S.._ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
notice, little trouble is experienced in the collection of its dues, except 
perhaps from renters who have removed their insured personal prop- 
erty to some other State or locality. 
CLASSIFICATION OF RISKS. 
With relatively few exceptions the farmers’ mutual fire insurance 
companies of this country hitherto have charged the same rate for 
2ll classes of farm property. In explanation of this practice 1t may 
be said that little information has been at hand on which a classifi- 
eation of the various kinds of farm property could be based. Tt alse 
has been argued, for example, that while a barn may involve a 
greater fire hazard than a dwelling, each member, as a rule, owned 
and insured one building of each kind; hence little imjustice was 
done by taking the more hazardous barn at the same rate as the less 
hazardous dwelling. Especially, it has been argued that the classi- 
fication of property would involve an undesirable amount of addi- 
tional work for the officers of the company, particularly for the sec- 
retary in making out his netices and records of assessments. The 
amount of insurance on each class of risk would have to be multi- 
plied by its particular rate and then the sum of these products ascer- 
tained for each policy, while under the current practice the deter- 
mination of a member’s assessment involves but a single calculation. 
In spite of these arguments, all of which must be admitted to 
have more or less weight, a reasonable classification of risks is re- 
quired by considerations not only of justice but also of expediency. 
There is, after all, a very considerable difference in the nature of 
the property offered for insurance by different farmers. In one case 
the more hazardous barn may be worth twice as much as the less 
hazardous dwelling, and in another case a reverse relation between 
the two may exist. One farmer insures a large number of live stock 
and another does not. Still further, experience is bringing out 
more and more clearly that farm buildings put to the same use are 
by no means equally hazardous. The material of which they are 
constructed, the location with regard to other buildings, the ab- 
sence or presence of proper lightning rods, very materially affect the 
fire hazard. In fact, this differentiation of risks with reference to 
the fire hazard is increasing rather than decreasing as the community 
progresses from an economic standpoint. While in the past prac- 
tically all farm buildings were built of wood with shingle roofs, an 
increasing number of buildings are now constructed of brick or 
stone, while slate, tile, or metal roofs are even more frequent. The 
larger commercial companies, and also the larger mutuals that either 
classify or carefully select their risks, are making increased efforts 
to secure as risks farm buildings so constructed that the fire hazard 
