| Author |
Message |
David Tankersley
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 9:29 pm: | |
I just got chastised for doing the brittle test on a roof that did not have any damage. The brittle test failed and the shingle broke. The only damage to the roof was by me doing the stupid brittle test. I am keeping a log of the many different changes in the way I am told to fill out the paper work. Every storm is different. |
alan jackson (Ajackson)
| | Posted on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 9:20 am: | |
I have just read the article written by Mr. Graves. I found this article to be informative and to the point. I was proud to hear that several adjusters had the backbone to say enough and walk away from the storm.
This method of evaluating roof claims brings several questions to mind.
A) Does the matrix system deterimine a method of repair that is accepted industry wide?
B) Will the homeowner be able to get the repairs completed by a lic., insured roofer or contractor that will warranty the work?
C) Most roofs have a pre-existing warranty, ie 20-25 years. Will the new repairs as outlined by the Matrix void any pre-existing warranty? Will the new repairs have equal or a greater warranty than the area repaired?
You would think that any system used would maintain a proven accepted industry standard. I would like to hear from those adjusters who have used this system. It would be interesting to hear about their experiences.
It sounds like this is the making of a mess. If the intent of this system is to avoid litigation, then it would appear on the surface that the Matrix has missed the mark. I can see it now BILLY BOB SMITH AND ALL ALLSTATE INSUREDS SIMILIARLY SITUATED V ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Could be the class action lawsuit that lawyers dream about. Only time will tell. |
|
