Insurance - What the % of roof to be replaced, that will require the whole roof

Insurance companies paying claims in MN will pay to bring things to code. If you provide the code and or a letter from the local building official they will be forced to pay to bring it to code. Code language can be tough to understand on certain things and it's also tough in some cities to get anything in writing.

What I know is prior to July 1 2007 if over 25% of your roof had to be replaced due to storm damage the insurance company owed to bring the entire roof to code. Since that date the insurance companies in MN no longer owes for full replacement of all slopes if not all slopes have damage. Some insurance companies will want test squares on all four sides on a hip roof to total the whole roof while others only want test squares on two sides of a hip roof.

Had a roof in South St. Paul last Summer that the insurance company paid to tear off the upper section which was a layer of shakes, two layers of asphalt, and redeck. The upper section was 12/12 and about 14 squares while the two porches were one layer and about 2 squares. I tried and tried to get the insurance provider to cover the whole roof but they stood firm on there position of replacing the upper section due to wind damage. We did test squares on the porches and no damage was found as they were only 5 years old. Figuring I'd get the backing of the local building official deciced to give him a call. He was explained the situation and he said that I could do just the upper section to code and he would pass the roof if the two porches were left alone. He said it would of course be best to do the porches but he could not enforce it by code. The home owner ended up paying out of pocket for the porch roofs. The inspector said he didn't like the new law but did like the new law that was made that day that no longer allows for roof overs in most of MN.

There are other ways to try to get the insurance company to cover a whole roof replacement but it takes a little leverage. It's tough to reverse an adjusters summary but it can happen. Had one adjuster pay for a full roof replacement after he denied the roof only a month earlier and while writing the check to the home owner said there was no hail damage. Strange things can happen when you work hundreds of insurance claims.

It is quite obvious that the reason insurance companies have resorted to "sloping" roofs is to decrease financial exposure.

I ask them why they pay to paint a whole ceiling from the kitchen down the hallway and living room if they are all attached yet the spot on the ceiling was only a few inches in size? The say it is to make sure it all matches.

I reply that the insured deserves the same consideration on the external portion of their home as the interior. When they dissagree they just expose the fact that their claim handling practice is to benfit them financially and not in the insured best interest.

And if the adjuster tries to pay for just a back side of a roof I just put mega charges in my estimate for hand carrying all the tear off around the house, down the driveway, and into the dumpster. I also charge additional for setting up all the tools and ladders on the back side of the house as well. I especialy tell them that osha requires me to have two ladders on two differant slopes, one for going up and one for going down.

They always call me and say they won't pay for that, and I ask why? They say cause you can just go over the front of the roof. The second they say that they are trapped.

I reply, Oh so you want me to have my crew walk up and down the slope of the roof that your not replacing to throw all the tear off down on the ground etc. etc. So what happens if the singles on the front side get damaged? I'll just tell your insured to call you up so you can explain it to them, because I won't pay or be responsible for any damage to the slope your not paying for. ok?

You just gotta think a bit to expose the stupidity. Like the adjuster that only wants to remove and reset attic vents. No problem here's my charge for handling and storing them off to the side on the job site until it is time to re-install them.

Nuggets guys don't forget them. = )

There is no doubt insurance companies are always thinking about saving money when writing claims. It's the wonderful independant adjusters who don't think this way as they are normaly paid on commission on claims over $20K.

Have had staff adjusters pay me for everything I wanted and then had a commission driven adjuster that won't pay for nothing.

Last week had my first result with meeting with an engineer. First and second adjuster said no damage to roofing. Engineer said there was hail damage. Office adjuster decided after looking at all the pictures and reports that the insured was owed a new roof. Win for the home owner loss for the insurance provider. Funny thing was I talked to the home owners agent about the roof damage prior to having the engineer coming out ($1,500). She said they lost and won one last year when it got down to an engeering report for roof damage. When asked what won meant she said they didn't have to buy the insured anything. Now they lost two and won one!!! I think the engineer's report wasn't as important at the time compared to the x-husbands letter. He's one of the best criminal lawyers in the state. Chances are they figured it was a battle they didn't want to fight anymore.

Last week had another engineer said there was hail damage after both previous adjusters said there was no hail damage.

Ed the Roofer said:

Dougger,

A new thread with photos of what the Adjuster's said NO to but the Engineer's said YES to getting approved would be a great pictorial benefit to many contractors and home owners alike, if you have the time and don't mind please.

Also, did you get the copies of the Engineer's Reports?

Ed

Click to expand...

I have not yet gotten the copies of the Engineer's Report and may not be able to get them. Since the Insurance provider paid for the engineer to access the damages more than likely they would not even give the report to the insured as it cost them several hundreds of dollars to have the report done. Of course I could be wrong but will take pics of the hail damage on both roofs when I get to them (hopefully in the next month or so). Perhaps on the next meeting with a engineer will ask to see if they could send me a copy of the report. They gave me cards both times.

For $1,500 I would jump at the chance to look for hail or wind damage on a roof. Shoot, plan one a day five days a week and you could have it made. After meeting with hundreds of different adjusters you learn what is really hail how much damage it's caused the overall roof surface and what's not hail damage.

I think the situtation wasn't really "Is this hail damage or what is it?" It's more "We don't feel we should be buying you a new roof". Once an outside party said yes it's hail damage they are sort of forced into buying the roof.

Yesterday at a county fair talked to a door knocker for a couple storm chasers. He said getting approvals has been very tough this year for him and the others he works with. He says to get in now you shouldn't expect your first dollar for at least a month in a half. He said last year he'd get every home owner to sign a contingancy contract but this year has not had any sign it. Guess what's the bother if you really know down deep in side there's no damage!

The ones that are making the good money are out of state chasing the big hail storms like we had in recent years. NE and CO look like two states hit with a lot of big hail this year.

buildpinnacle said:

Ed,

I may have some engineers reports in some old commercial files from a few years back if you're interested. I'll try to dig them up if you like and can xerox and mail to you.

Jett

Click to expand...

dougger222 said:

I have not yet gotten the copies of the Engineer's Report and may not be able to get them. Since the Insurance provider paid for the engineer to access the damages more than likely they would not even give the report to the insured as it cost them several hundreds of dollars to have the report done. Of course I could be wrong but will take pics of the hail damage on both roofs when I get to them (hopefully in the next month or so). Perhaps on the next meeting with a engineer will ask to see if they could send me a copy of the report. They gave me cards both times.

For $1,500 I would jump at the chance to look for hail or wind damage on a roof. Shoot, plan one a day five days a week and you could have it made. After meeting with hundreds of different adjusters you learn what is really hail how much damage it's caused the overall roof surface and what's not hail damage.

I think the situtation wasn't really "Is this hail damage or what is it?" It's more "We don't feel we should be buying you a new roof". Once an outside party said yes it's hail damage they are sort of forced into buying the roof.

Yesterday at a county fair talked to a door knocker for a couple storm chasers. He said getting approvals has been very tough this year for him and the others he works with. He says to get in now you shouldn't expect your first dollar for at least a month in a half. He said last year he'd get every home owner to sign a contingancy contract but this year has not had any sign it. Guess what's the bother if you really know down deep in side there's no damage!

The ones that are making the good money are out of state chasing the big hail storms like we had in recent years. NE and CO look like two states hit with a lot of big hail this year.

Click to expand...

I definitely would like to compile a collection of Engineer reports with photos that document hail that was originally turned down by the adjuster, but approved by an Engineer. Presumably, in most cases, it would be a borderline judgment call, but I feel that if their is room for doubt, the decision should go in the behalf of their paying client, not conversely to look for reasons for denial.

Yesterday, I met with a Farmers In House Adjuster and I could tell as soon as he stepped foot on the roof, that he was going to take the "Well, I Guess We Will Have To Agree To Disagree" stance.

I will post photos that I took if they came out clearly enough to get your collective opinions. Granted, the roof was 15 years old, but it looked as if the entire roof was sandblasted and completely scoured, which is rather non-typical for this area.

The adjuster said he didn't see any, so he wanted me to mark the spots that I thought were damaged. Then, he went by each 10 x 10 area and wrote Zero with a slash through it on all of the sections on the roof.

I think it will make a good topic for comparison sake.

I am surprised any Engineer hired by the insurance company ever disagrees with their initial conclusions, since they are biting the hand that feeds them. A very biased 3rd party, who is supposed to be neutral can not possibly remain neutral if they are financed by only one of the parties in a disagreement.

Ed