PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 01/15/2008 12:46 AM by  rbryanhines
Is the Insurance Carrier responsible for sheathing?
 30 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 212 > >>
Author Messages
Doug Weaver
Guest
Guest
Posts:4


--
12/16/2007 8:30 PM

    Is the Insurance carrier responsible for replacement of sheathing if it cannot be nailed to?  I have a friend who's roof was totaled by the carrier.  When the roof was removed the sheathing was not rotted at all but was about 50 years old.  This was plank sheathing.  When the roofers tried to walk on it or nail it,  the sheathing would break due to brittleness.  Does the Insurance carrier have any responsibility for this? 

    Thanks for any input,

    Doug

    0
    stormcrow
    Member
    Member
    Posts:437


    --
    12/16/2007 9:53 PM

    Was the sheathing damaged by the event that damaged the shingles?

    I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
    0
    Wes
    Member
    Member
    Posts:72


    --
    12/17/2007 2:36 AM
    I think you willl find in most instances that yes the carrier would be responsible for new sheathing. However this can very from state to state. Have the roofer put together an estimate for the sheathing and attach it to a report from same roofer on the condition of the sheathing and why it requires replacement.
    0
    Doug Weaver
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:4


    --
    12/17/2007 6:56 AM

    The event did not damage the sheathing directly.  However the shingles could not be replaced without the new sheathing.   I've seen carriers pay to remove a layer of wood shingles and install sheathing over lath boards in order to replace an overlying composition roof.  Thats why I thought perhaps the carrier might pay?

    0
    fbreese
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:2


    --
    12/17/2007 9:00 AM
    If the sheathing will not support the roofer then the carrier will likely pay for its replacement because it is necessary to repair the damaged roof. If the sheathing is not damaged and is usable, the carrier probably will not pay for it. There is likely to be code upgrade requirements for the sheathing. If the policy has ordinance and law coverage, it could be changed as required by code if there is any damage to it and paid for by the carrier. If their is no damage to the sheathing, you will need to check with your examiner, explain the situation and ask if they will pay for it.
    0
    Tom Toll
    Moderator & Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1865


    --
    12/17/2007 10:42 AM

    Was the damage to the planking a covered cause of loss. In your scenario,  it was not. You must have a nailable surface to attach the shingles, so coverage for that would be a carriers decision. Sounds like the attic cross ventilation was not good. Planking should last longer than 50 years.

    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
    0
    stormcrow
    Member
    Member
    Posts:437


    --
    12/17/2007 11:12 AM
    In Texas for a period of time the carriers were saving money by having shingles placed on top of the wood shinges (damaged by hail). Last time I did hail in Dallas we were paying to provide a nailable surface, as instructed by the TDI. This solution is not related to the question.
    I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    12/17/2007 11:38 AM

    I am with Tom on this one. If it was pine/fir planks 1x6, 8, 10 or 12 It will last longer than the contractor and home owner combined ages. I would need to see it , to believe. 

    0
    Doug Weaver
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:4


    --
    12/17/2007 11:45 AM

    I know it sounds strange but the boards would shatter when nailed.  They had no evidence of rot, just brittle.  The previous roofer had the same problem as they had put  metal flashing all over the roof to try to save the sheathing. ( 6" planks )  

    Anyway I appreciate all the responses.  Kinda looks like the carrier isn't actually responsible.  The damage was definately not a result of the hail storm.

    0
    johnclark719@yahoo.com
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:21


    --
    12/17/2007 2:45 PM

     

    Sounds like the last post by the contractor hit the nail on the head on this question, (all pun intended). 

    The previous roofer had the same problem would show it was pre-existing and the evidence of the metal flashing he spoke of would be evident.

    If an inspection made after the roof shingles was off, I would have to state to the insurance company it was pre- existing problem and excluded under the policy. 

    I know the nailable surface has been used in the past in other states and paid but I believe SF might have been the first or the company to use it most, then they, from what I understand have quit doing it.  And I would have to agree if not damaged by the covered loss it would not be a covered part of the loss even if the nailable surface came up. I do agree with the wood shake shingles having to come off and new decking installed.

     

    0
    rbryanhines
    Member
    Member
    Posts:119


    --
    12/17/2007 8:44 PM
    If the repairs that the carrier are allowing for cannot be performed without providing a nailable surface then I would demand that they pay for it (9 times out of 10 they will pay)!
    0
    moco
    Member
    Member
    Posts:122


    --
    12/17/2007 9:01 PM

    There may be ensuing damage to the sheathing during the R&R, if it is as brittle as you are stating. Depending on the carrier, the carrier i work for will allow on average for entire R&R of 1x6, 8 10 etc sheathing, as most of it is T&G and removal is likely going to cause ensuing damage to adjacent planks, However this has to be explained thoroughly in my reports.

    0
    BobH
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:759


    --
    12/17/2007 9:20 PM
    I know a lot of you folks are not in California, but we had one of the first "fair claim" regulations in the mid 90's that ended up spreading to other states. We have a statute that anything damaged in the course of an insurance repair becomes part of the claim. In other words, if you are pulling out a bathtub and the framing gets busted, or the thing unavoidably damages the ceramic tile floor, it is automatically part of the claim. Sort of common sense - but the consumer rights people set it into law.

    If the carrier thinks the contractor blew it - they could try to recover. But as far as the policy holder is concerned, it is one simple claim.

    As always, you have to look at your other exclusions like "rot" and so on. I don't doubt what is being described on the sheathing, but would have to see it in person rather than just a phone call. It's funny, most old materials are better than what you can get today. But occasionally you see old bad sheathing with unsound knots and coffee can lids nailed over the missing knot holes. Or in this case... flashing all over the sheathing??
    Bob H
    0
    HuskerCat
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:762


    --
    12/17/2007 9:51 PM
    Posted By D. G. Weaver on 12/17/2007 11:45 AM

    I know it sounds strange but the boards would shatter when nailed.  They had no evidence of rot, just brittle.  The previous roofer had the same problem as they had put  metal flashing all over the roof to try to save the sheathing. ( 6" planks )  

    Anyway I appreciate all the responses.  Kinda looks like the carrier isn't actually responsible.  The damage was definately not a result of the hail storm.

    A little problem here separating my response, so I'll change the font: 

    Most states I've worked, a nailable surface is required & the carrier will pay for it...regardless of whether that surface was damaged as a result of the "cause of loss" (ie.  hail/wind damage to any/all layers of shingles on top of wood shakes & spaced decking, or other similar scenarios).  These multiple layers generally constitute repairs to be done according to code, and complete tear-off may be required...thus the new nailable surface or sheathing.

    We don't know from this case how long ago the roof was repaired, but it seems to me that the previous roofer sure could have made things simpler by just over-sheathing and shingling instead of applying all those pieces of metal flashing. Do you mean a piece-meal flashing across the whole roof, or 50% or more of it flashed? 

    We also don't know from your post how long the insured has lived there, and whether they authorized the previous method of repair...nor do we know if the same insurance carrier is on the loss.  The only reason I bring this up is because there may be a record on file.  You would be surprised that HO losses are not reviewed for prior claims with the same scrutiny that auto losses are.  As a staff adjuster, and as an independent, I've found this to be overlooked on a high percentage of claims.  They may have been paid previously to have the roof re-sheathed, and simply didn't do it. But getting back to your point, in most jurisdictions, there is coverage for a nailable surface on replacement cost policies. "Nailable surface", I suppose, depends on the new product being installed. If you are replacing wood shakes for wood shakes over this same spaced decking, and it is brittle/not damaged, then I'd say "no".  But the homeowner would still come out ahead on the ACV of the roofing & T/O if they re-sheathed & applied comp shingles instead of wood shakes.

    0
    rbryanhines
    Member
    Member
    Posts:119


    --
    12/17/2007 9:55 PM
    By the way I would bet they have a ventilation problem that needs to be corrected!!!!!!!
    0
    JimGary
    Member
    Member
    Posts:470


    --
    12/18/2007 10:52 AM
    I had this same problem with a roof on my old house. It had 3 layers of roofing to be torn off. At times when walking on the 1x8 decking, you would just fall between the rafters. When nailing the planks would split. We went to a pneumatic stapler that seemed to work better. Roof lasted till I moved.

    JWG
    I know the voices aren't real, but sometimes they're right!
    0
    Tom Toll
    Moderator & Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1865


    --
    12/18/2007 6:33 PM

    Bryan, I agree, too much heat build up will cause boards to become brittle, due to loss of sap. With  a good cross ventilation system, wood planking or plywood should last well over 50 years. That too depends on how many time the shingles are replaced. A bunch of nail holes will destroy the integrity of the wood also.

    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
    0
    johnclark719@yahoo.com
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:21


    --
    12/18/2007 7:10 PM

     

    From Mike Kunze post, he stated we were not told how long the insured lived there and that also has to be considered.

    The adjuster of record I am sure would have asked that and if they were not the owners at the time of previous roof replacement it does make a difference in pre-existing condition as they would not have known about it. If they were the ones to have previous roof put on then I would still turn in as pre-existing condition and I would not recomend paying for it.

    As stated by others some states have addressed the nailable surface and made law or a part of the loss. And that is ok but do you see where this could lead. 

    When Insurance Companies know they are going to be at risk to pay for these kind of repairs they are going to raise all homeowners insurance rates and this will influence other types of repairs also. The Consumer Advocate is good I guess but  people are going to have to take the responsibility upon themselves to have the home inspected before they purchase. If they find inadequate roof ventilation then it should be addressed then. An insurance policy should not end up paying for a contractor or builders error and then be factored into everyones homeowners premiums. 

    I know some are going to say the Insurance Company has the right to inspect before issuing the policy but an in detail inspection cost will still be factored in to the homeowner.

    This may be getting off the subject but some of you are saying it should be paid for. Have you thought it out completely. Rot and Deterioration are excluded in a policy and a contractor error or a covered loss should not change that. Things are leading up to Homeowner Insurance being as outrageous as Health Insurance.  

    Each loss has to be looked at on its own merit rather than an across the board all the decking needs replaced for nailable surface, which no contractor likes to do sections here and there.

    I believe I read in another post that he stated, as I agree, big business is running this country and not the average person such as most adjusters are. Also to further state we can still take it back if we put good people in office and hold them accountable just as building inspectors should be.

    I have said before I am not taking up for the Insurance Company, as they are big business too, I am just wanting to put responsibility where it is due so my kids and grandkids and so forth can have a chance.

    I handled a claim during Charley in FL that the lady stated she was a secretary to a congessman. She went on about how she knew the insurance companies are the biggest lobbiest in the country moreso than anyone else at the time. I do not know that to be fact but have no reason to doubt it. How else does someone like lobbiest Jack Abramhof throw around the money like he did. Big Business gave it to him.

     

    Got way off base of the question but is my reasoning behind it as well as the policy excluding the rot or deterioration asked on the question of this particular claim presented to insurance company.

     

     

    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    12/19/2007 1:03 PM

    This is an excellant example of insurance carriers in one state expanding the scope of loss to include a condition that was discovered after a loss, that is not covered under the latent defect and other exclusions.  The state was probably Texas.

    The history as I recall was along these lines. The storm was a summer hail storn in El Paso, TX  in 1991 and most of the roofs were composition T-Lock or the Bird Shingle that had two small ears that had locks . The shingles are good shingles for wind resistance in this area, as the 3 tabs do not unseal and flap. The contractors did not replace with the same type for several reason and the carriers were insisting on lay overs on this storm.

    The result was lumpy poor looking 3 tabs over the old lumpy lock shingles and the outcry began and both layers were removed and laid over the "nailable surface". The largest carrier started the ball game and ended the ball game and all the other carriers fell into line except about 4-5 of the Texas carriers. As I recall the Texas Insurance Commish ruled all comps must come off (new& old) to the deck(solid) but did not address the old  wood shingle decks(abandoned-no value).

    The 4-5 small Texas Carriers sued the commish and a jury trial ruled the contract is the rules and not a commish ruling, and these carriers did not pay like the big boys. I do not think a case has ever been adjudicated to make this Texas law, nor any other state law that I know off.

    Therefore, all of you  *AIA's and** CIA's be very careful you may have to testify as an expert. **

    * Adjuster for Insureds Advocate.

    **Contractor for Insureds Advocate.

    *** Contact me for your official designation, Trader OMPC**** official mold police chief ****

     

    0
    ALANJ
    Member
    Member
    Posts:142


    --
    12/19/2007 2:45 PM

    Is anyone working due to all of the recent ice and winter storms? I'm sure this is posted under the wrong thread and I hope it will be placed in the correct one.

     

    Thanks,

     

    AlanJ

    0
    You are not authorized to post a reply.
    Page 1 of 212 > >>


    These Forums are dedicated to discussion of Claims Adjusting.

    For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines: 
    • No Advertising. 
    • No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or others to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
    • No Flaming or Trolling.
    • No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
    • Terms of Use Apply

      Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.

    Quick Stats as of 9/5/2020

    Total Forums 38
    Total Topics 2689
    Total Replies 24711