Posted By WILLIS on 29 Sep 2010 07:56 PM

My two cents would be this:  If you have a widespread wind event such as tornado or hurricane or hail then do not fight the issue of replacing the roof.  Just do it.  Pay the insured a fair ACV, holdback what you can, if allowed by state law, then pay the full cost when the roof is replaced.  Use an accepted service like Eagleview to generate an accurate roof measurement coupled with Xactimate or Simsol or DDS or whatever is the current going rate.  Put the burden on the insured to stop any further interior or exterior damage.   If he fails to comply then defend with the policy condition  of failure to mitigate his damages to prevent further loss.  

 

 

Posted By jdacree on 28 Sep 2010 11:42 PM
The granular surface serves 2 purposes, a) to protect the mat from UV damage, b) to provide the different colors that homeowners want. Hagg had a good study on line about granular loss about a year back that showed that granular loss in itself did not contribute to the loss of function of the roof covering.

Good post and I agree with the definition of the functional purpose of the granules.  However, my concern is the approach to defining the functional purpose of the roof's shingles. A roof functions when it lasts as long as the advertised warranty (20 yr, 25 yr, 30 yr, etc).

The roof functions when it has all of its granules fastened to the black mastic underlayment.  When the granules are gone, the shingles no longer function to protect the home and will succumb to cracking- usually within a 2-5 year period.  Sure, it may shed water right after the storm, but the roof itself looses its functionality when it will not last for its advertised warranty.

If light amounts of granules are lost in a generalized fashion without any black mastic showing, then the roof still functions.  This is why I can justify calling this issue as not acceptable for roof replacement.  Conversely, I can understand why others would disagree, but I'd still see this as not a qualified justification for replacement.

Hi Ryan,

I wish it were that simple.  I've applied the definition you provided for the past ten (10) years.  I've always cruised on through hail claims under that general principle.  I wished it did not have to change.

However, some carriers are wanting adjusters to get the HAAG certification.  With it, their approved adjusters will then approach hail claims based on the definition provided in my initial post.  Perhaps the definition is still the same, but its the carrier that chooses an alternative interpretation- kind of hard to do that unless you actually edit the words you provided.

This topic in a nutshell is described in Willis post about the the "amount of damage from wind hail. This is the real world of adjusting, as long as carriers can keep getting more money for hazard insurance determined only  by paid losses to settle all claims, even those disputed claims at the lowest level of the claim tree(roof claims); cost of defense will always win out.

This topic in a nutshell is described in Willis post about the the "amount of damage from wind hail. This is the real world of adjusting, as long as carriers can keep getting more money for hazard insurance determined only by paid losses to settle all claims, even those disputed claims at the lowest level of the claim tree(roof claims); cost of defense will always win out.

Ray, you've got a run on sentence even without the phrase after the semicolon. Are you saying that when the pressure is on, carriers will fold like a cheap suit to settle their claims?

That thinking infers that some carriers may adjust their claims in the absence of sound principles just so they can save a buck.

My approach: use sound principles on the front end by taking your time, stick to the facts and avoid a bean counter approach. I've seen too many supplements and those that enter Appraisal because the adjuster wanted to rush his inspection or the paperwork only to have the carrier nickel and dime their way through a loss they didn’t inspect.

The reasons for rushing involve anything from crappy fee schedules to unscrupulous principles like requiring 'torn backing' in order to consider repair/replacement for hail damage.
 

I am a staff adjuster of more than 13 yrs.  I could not agree mre with your comments.  Our company used HAAG for many years, but due to litigation involving claims, our position is changed to utilize a number of different firms.  The HAAG studies from years ago remain solid and provide a good starting point.  I have always maintained that we should defend our position in court, however that requires solid investigating and good communication with the customer, best accomplished at the time of inspection.  It always amazes me when a contractor that the homeowner knows nothing about, has more influence than the adjuster.  The company I work for has NEVER suggested that we NOT pay for the damages we find.  Therein may be some of the problem.  There is no substitute for experience!  Getting to that point can often be an uncomfortable journey.   

There are carriers who are resorting to using "Engineers" to perform roof inspections. I have inspected behind several engineers and for a g-note they tell the carriers what an experienced Adjuster should have already told them, the problem is the carriers lower their fee bills and expect to get GA's when the only one's who will work are newbies. And when that happens you get what you pay for. And then the IA Firms are trying to pay 60% I hear. I told one engineer he didn't know the difference between a blister, and a hail hit, and Another one on a Commercial built up roof, called a blistered roof a "Severely hail damaged roof" when the Dude should know that when the built up is hot mopped on, and there is moisture you will get blisters it is that simple.

I've learned in the past couple of years to give each carrier what they want.  Some follow HAAG to the letter while others go the "if it looks like hail hit it, call it" route.  There just isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to do this these days.

I had a claim a couple of weeks ago that has me (and the inside reviewer) bewildered.  Hail in the area sized up to golf balls (I know this because it hit my house too). Confirmed damage to the gutters, downspouts, gutter guards (holes in plastic where hail hit), vent caps.  Back slope looks like a speckled egg.  I marked my test square, circled the hits, shook hands with the contractor, and left.  I got this one back the other day from my reviewer stating the carrier inside adjuster did not see any evidence of hail damage on the shingles in my photos.  I was asked to write a roof minimum charge for the vent caps and 3 wind damaged shingles.  I can't wait to see what happens when the contractor and insured persue this one further...*sarcasm*