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.