Forums

www.ramonroofing.com
we would not be a major player after storms. mainly work for friends and family.
our company only has 6 full time employees , but we work our a$$ off.

A side note, our company didnt have the oppoutunity to bid the projects i scoped.

I would think that if a close match cannot be found or remanufactured, that the insured has a legitimate complaint. Most of the carriers have their own take on this and many states have unfair claims practice laws on the books that cover this as well. I cannot comment on Texas, but Ohio Unfair Claims Practices indicate that you cannot just replace a portion of damaged property leaving it in a state that the overall value will be reduced.  Thats why we end up replacing entire groupings of cabinets. When I work with Big Red, they will replace any slopes that will be visible to the eye while standing in any one place due to matching issues. In any event, I don't believe it is a roofer's battle to fight, it is up to the insured and his carrier or the department of insurance. If I were a contractor and didn't feel comfortable with how a repair was dictated to me, I certainly would not take the job.

Mr. Todd Brooks how could you  be a successful roofer if you can not tell the truth. I think you should back up this $80,000. roof story with documents to prove you do not tell tall stories.Send the copies to the administrator to clear your name.

Lets take insurance coverage out of the picture.

Scenario, Mr. & Mrs. Insured have suffered damage to a few tiles on their roof. They attempt to find tiles that will match in color, so as not to have the house roof look like a checkerboard. They are not able to do this, as the tile manufacturer has gone out of business and they can find no tiles to match. I can assure you, Mr. & Mrs. Insured are NOT going to replace their entire roof for thousands of dollars, they are going to find a way to patch the roof. Now, if they are not willing to spend thousands of dollars just to cure a color variance, why should the insurance company. Lets have some intelligent comments on this, please.

Brooks, it is the duty of the home inspector to determine structural integrity and code compliance on homes they inspect, not color variances of the exterior. That is a cosmetic issue, unrelated to structural integrity.

Mismatched shingle colors are not all that out of the norm.  I have driven by new neighborhoods and noticed the patchwork colors that are very visible "by the square" on shingled roofs.  My sister's home is one of them, and they never noticed it until I mentioned it.  Now they see it, along with several of the neighbor's homes that were built around the same time.  That was 6 years ago!!!

These are very obvious patches (a bundle or two at a time) that were installed and the color lot was off.  Generally, you can expect a difference here & there, but they will fade and blend.  None of these have.  And nobody noticed it...except somebody like me or you.  I now avoid this subject of conversation when going to the homes of relatives or friends.  They are much happier not knowing.

"The carrier claims color & a different profile do not constitute LK&Q. Allstate says damaged pieces only. I am working on a different project, ( Hardi Shake) where 6 tiles were broken by a branch, & the whole roof was totaled. The roof will cost $80, K to replace. Just looking for some consitency. " --Brooks Todd

You may not really be looking for consistency here, because the consistency would likely be that the roof with six damaged tiles would likely not be replaced at a cost of $80,000. I would certainly not make that judgement call, if there is not more to the story than that. But this does serve to point out an important fact. I can't tell from your post whether the 80K roof is insured by the same insurance carrier as the residential roof that is the subject of this thread. If it is the same carrier, there should be an attempt to apply the same standards on every claim, regardless of the insured. Most carriers do try to apply the same rules to all their claims, but different examiners and adjusters may make different judgement calls. If you are not dealing with the same carrier on both losses, then there would be no expectation that they would act consistently with each other. Insurance companies, contrary to media portrayals, do not actually get together and decide on a unified course of action or set of claim handling procedures. "Big Insurance" is not monolithic. Some have stricter standards than others. In fact, if insurance companies were to meet with each other and decide that they would all handle claims the same, the media would crucify them. There would be a great hew and cry from the plaintiff's bar, as well. There would be allegations of price fixing, money grabbing, and collusion to defraud the public. Come to think of it, those allegations are already made even though there is no attempt to develop unified standards. Already there is the tendency to lump all insurance companies together, even though some are mutual companies owned by the policyholder, some are stock companies, owned by stock holders, some are alien insurers with headquarters in other countries, and some are non-admitted companies that sell only to those who can obtain insurance from no other source.
This issue of what constitutes like kind and quality is certainly an important issue for this community to consider. I doubt, however, that you will get anywhere on a particular claim by consulting us. The authority for settling the particular claim to which you refer in the original post on this thread lies firmly with the carrier on that claim and the individual policyholder involved. It's actually a good thing that you are willing to go to bat for one of your potential customers, but they may need to invoke the appraisal clause of their policy if they are not satisfied with the carrier's decision and have not been able to convince a supervisor to reverse the original decision.

The problem is called an adjustment problem in most insurance claim departments. It comes up on auto's that will" never be the same" ( first and 3rd party), and most carriers will adopt some rule such as if the repair cost equals 75% of the "book" price the auto will be totaled and the title stamped "salvage" for new owners to beware. Flood waters over the dash board the same.

Its not written in stone but SOME carriers will do the same with roof claim cost to repair exceed a percentage as low as 51% of  R & R cost.

In a "problem" roof claim I have NEVER seen a ridge replacement and 6 field shingle total out a roof.  I have seen very few tile roofs and ridges with 15-20 years of age that did not have evidence of miss matched color or profile shingles. I can not believe the carrier did not demand "appraisal" on the 80K roof. If it did go to appraisal and the award was $80K. The umpire was a homer and the appriaser was a light weight.

The only point I was making was that "mis-matches" are common and usually not noticed, or not a big deal... at least here in the Midwest anyway.  That does not happen in Cat losses, I understand.  You would be surprised that the farmers and smalltown folk here in the Midwest are very aware of the impact of insurance claims made.   We have had storms around here after Katrina/Rita/Wilma, and the independents as well as the staff adjusters will tell you that claims-made are way,way down.