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.
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.
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.