Hail Damage Visibility
Printed from: CatAdjuster.org Forum Archives
Topic URL: http://www.catadjuster.org/forum2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=618
Printed on: 10/16/2024
Topic:
Topic author: fivedaily
Subject: Hail Damage Visibility
Posted on: 10/03/2003 20:41:15
Message:
Let's talk about hail damage... I have been pondering recently whether or not it is actually true that the hail damage will be visible in 6 months if it is not visible during my current inspection.
I have seen these idea passed around recently and want to have further discussion and input.
Now, as a young adjuster, I went out on a re-i request 3-4 months after my initial denial of hail damage and did find hail damage to warrant repairs to the roof. Was this because I was not thorough enough at the initial inspection? Or was it simply that the damage could not be found?
I have even used this idea as a way to pacify homeowners if they weren't happy with my denial, actually believing what I was telling them (because of the above scenario).
I was particularly disturbed the other day when a roofer met me at a loss and after we scoured the roof the best we could, we found NO hail damage except to some box vents. He had called the claim in for the homeowner claiming hail damage to the roof. After I told him I wasn't buying it, he flippantly said, "wait 6 months, the next adjuster will." That upset me for so many reasons which I know you felt in a visceral way as you read his comment to me.
I guess what I really want to know is, if I look hard enough the first time, can I find that same damage that will possibly show up 6 months later? If I can, how much harder are we talking? An extra 5 minutes per test square? And extra 30 minutes?
I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions or thoughts anyone has on this, from any side of the proverbial fence.
Just do me one favor... let's not get all partisian or flaming here. I like my topics to stay friendly. :-)
Jennifer
Replies:
Reply author: pilot48
Replied on: 10/03/2003 20:54:12
Message:
Jennifer, just to get on the same page here. what exactly do you do to look for hail damage on your inspection? This is a sincere question in an effort to comport to your request.
Reply author: khromas
Replied on: 10/03/2003 21:09:45
Message:
Jennifer,
You are entirely right in feeling upset with the roofer who basically insulted you at the time of your initial inspection with his snide remark! Unfortunately, too many insureds will listen to a roofer over an adjuster in the assessment of the roof condition. As a woman, you face the double hurdle of expertise and credibility in many areas of the costruction business, even though you may be highly qualified.
The principle of "delayed" damage is premised on the impact of the small hailstones pushing the granules into the asphalt core very slightly. This movement of the granules breaks their adhesion to the asphalt but because they are slightly imbedded, they may remain in place for a period of time and eventually be dislodged by rain or snow. Therefore, not showing up for a few months. About the only way to check for true impacts is to lift the tabs and feel underneath for a dimple or crack in the asphalt core.
As for telling the insured that the damage is not apparent at this time but that it may show at a later time, THAT IS PERFECTLY OK! As adjusters, we need to do a better job of informing the insured of as much as possible about damage, the policy, mitigation responsibility and a world of other things!
In the scenerio you laid out, I would (and have on numerous occasions) explain to the insured that the damages are not apparent now and they do not need a new roof AT THIS TIME! I would point out that they do not need to spend their deductible (NO roof is "free"!)to get a new roof and they could put that money aside for a future need! It is amazing the responses I would get from a grateful insured and how seldom I had to argue with a "roof salesman"!
If you ever get the opportunity, attend one of the roof seminars put on by HAAG Engineering. They are great for the information they present even though their analysis process on a roof is rather lengthy for us CAT adjusters!
Hope this helps!
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/03/2003 21:12:26
Message:
I use the Haag standards. Bruising w/ damage to the mat. Granular loss does not cut it. I tend to avoid calling it hail damage if all of "bruises" are on the butt edge... mostly attributing those types of things to foot traffic. I attempt to distinguish between blisters, weathering, and nail pops.
Good question... hadn't thought to include it. I think this just about covers it.
Jennifer
By edit, I am advising that this is my process now. Can't say I was always as thorough in my formative years. (mini joke here... I've been doing this a little more than 4 years)
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/03/2003 21:16:03
Message:
Wow Kevin, that was an excellent response. I never was really able to get my mind around why I might have missed the damage the first time around. Your explanation seems to make real sense and alleviates me of my concern that I may have been giving the short end of the stick on some of these inspections. Thanks.
Jennifer
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/03/2003 21:34:42
Message:
Well, we have some great input already to Hurricane's good question. Unfortunately, my thoughts are non-scientific and I have no technical data to support them; but it has happened enough over the years that you start to believe the reasoning or explanation.
I see two basic issues involved - given the extent and integrity of your roof inspection.
First, weather conditions or light conditions at the time of inspection. The way the sun shines or a dull grey sky, in comparison to the color of the shingles; at times makes minor damage impossible to see. While in the same neighbourhood a day or so later with different light conditions (be it time of day or general weather), out of curiosity I have gone back to a roof where I thought there should have been hail damage - because of other damage found off the roof - and found hail damage on the roof on that second look. I've convinced myself - much like you have expressed for your reason Jenn - that I didn't see any damage the prior day because of the light conditions prevailing at the time of the first inspection a day or so prior.
Secondly, as was well ballyhoo'd many months ago, I am a believer in cummulative and accelerated granular loss (remember diminshed value). Perhaps the light was right on the first visit and I could not identify any damage on the roof, but 6 months later sure enough there it is. I've come to believe (well almost), and Kevin seems to support much more technically this idea, that hail striking an asphalt shingle roof, but not leaving visible evidence of damage, will cause "extra" or accelerated granular loss in the "hit spots"; therefore becoming visible 6 months later.
As for the roofer's prediction for 6 months hence, so be it, if it comes to pass with an equally conscientious and honest examination of the roof. If there was no damage found today, my wallet stays zipped, with a clear conscious; and I again like the way in which Kevin adresses this issue.
I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts from others on the effect of light conditions, along the lines as I have noted.
Reply author: khromas
Replied on: 10/03/2003 21:47:21
Message:
Another avenue to consider when the roofer keeps trying to push the issue is to point out to the insured who the ONLY member of the 'trifecta' is that will make a profit from their situation. The carrier will be paying a large portion of the loss, the insured will have to pay their deductible (and in some circumstances, that can be substantial) and the roofer will be the only one pocketing the money! Kind of blows their credibility as an un-biased third-party!
(A little story about a roofer I dealt with in Houston. We looked at a roof and I agreed that we would replace it. As we were about to get on the ladder to get down, I turned to him and said that I wanted him to write an estimate for my consideration and that he should write it as if insurance was not involved, that he was competing for the job. I caught him off guard 'cause his response was (QUOTE) "But we charge more if it is insurance."! I blew up! I said "You just admitted to insurance fraud!" He stammered around and try to backtrack but the damage was done. Whenever I had a claim that company was involved with from then on, I made sure to tell the insured the story and why I would not accept their estimates for the amount of the damages! )
Reply author: Mcbride doug
Replied on: 10/03/2003 22:04:04
Message:
several years ago while working for a roofing company, i noticed real hail damage on a roof---- the insured called for a re-inspect, i met the adjuster at 3 pm on a sunny day, and all i could do was stand there and look dumbfounded. He said if i still wanted to pursue a total, he would have to call in an engineer. I said OK, but was dumbfounded, there was hail damage there a day ago ----- i went back at 7 pm and took pictures of hail damage( this was a black dimensional roof) ---the engineer looked at the roof in the early morning when light was less severe and backed up my findings. I talked to the adjuster without gloating, and he agreed to replace the roof. --- that was on a fiberglass shingled roof, wood shingles are just as subtle, if not more so. 4 months after a hail strike, a minor impact mark might not be visible. Roofers can wear golf shoes on a steep wood roof to repair it, but the marks from those will be hard to see in a year.
In conclusion--- wood roofs get a bad rap by all the sub standard ones put on, but a #1 or premium quality shake or shingle will stand up to one heck of a hail storm if it is within its first 15 years
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/03/2003 22:04:17
Message:
My take on Clayton's discussion of lighting...
I have noticed that sometimes, just after staring at the roof an extra couple of minutes I start to pick up on the shading in the granulation and can begin to pick out hail damage more readily. I think this goes for siding damage also. My theory, it just takes the eyes some time to adjust to whatever lighting and shading conditions existing at the time of inspection.
Jennifer
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/03/2003 22:07:56
Message:
I just hate those black roofs... if there has been a roofer out who claims impact marks from hail, I try to get that person to meet me at the loss around the same time of day they initially found the damage. I would still support what the adjuster in Doug's scenario did though. If I can't see I can't pay for it. (Though I might have tried for 1 reschedule if I wasn't buried to my neck with claims).
Jennifer
Reply author: katadj
Replied on: 10/03/2003 22:21:17
Message:
Try wearing Blue Blocker Glasses, You will see anything that is there.
Reply author: jlombardo
Replied on: 10/04/2003 07:23:07
Message:
Fivedailey----The glasses that work well for me are POLARIZED sun glasses, usually green......The department stores sell them in the sporting goods section as "fishing glasses"....they really work and save your eyes from sun damage......I know, because on small hail, I have to wear my bifocals and get on my hands and knees to do a thorough inspection.....wearing bifocals in bright sun is a no no...but the flip up polarized sunglasses work----if you need polarized flip ups, you will probably have to go to LensCrafters--about $25.00 for a good pair......
Another source of "seeing" problems is aluminum siding that has been hit with small hail.....you can't see it during most of the day, but come dusk and there it is....to solve this, wet the siding down with water and get a close angle on the siding---the dents show well with the water on them...
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/04/2003 08:36:18
Message:
Jennifer, I agree with your points and use of the Haag standards. And you do have to let your eyes adjust. I tell folks its like looking at one of those paintings you are suppose to stare at till all of sudden you see 3 penguins standing around a hole in the ice! The amount of sunlight, the color of the shingle, and how well you see are big factors. I take sunglasses sometimes but sometimes looking through sunglasses will filter out the light colors and bring out the dark and when you have a brown shingle with black granuals sprinked in, it tends to look like the whole roof is toast. You still need to put your hands on the shingle and fell for impacts. Dont just get your chalk out and go crazy.
Hail damage not there now, then shows up 6 months later???? It was there at the date of loss. It might have been just harder to see. Hail does not crush or, for the most part, displace the granuals when it impacts. Six months down the road, the rain and wind will have washed the loose granuals off and its easier to see. Just after the date of loss, you can get on a roof and not see much until you brush the loose granuals out of the impacts, so you do have to feel around. If your index finger is not a little raw the 4th or 5th day after you start inspections, you are not looking hard enough if you are in a fringe area.
Good thread Jen!
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/04/2003 12:24:00
Message:
Yesterday I went to a roof in an area that I new was hit pretty hard. I still can't figure out why people are making claims 5 months after the hail storm, but work is work. As I got to the top of the ladder I could easily see lots of damage. I smiled thinking wow, this is an easy one. Then I got my feet on the roof, stood straight up and the roof looked perfect. I couldn't see a single hit but the vents were pounded and I knew what I had just seen. So, I got down on my knees and tilted my head to the side and looked up the roof with my head about a foot off the surface and there it was, damage galore. As was said earlier the angle of light is important but apparently so is the angle of observation.
Reply author: Bockman
Replied on: 10/05/2003 22:47:42
Message:
Don't know that I'd label a contractor's insurance pricing as "fraud"; after all, a windshield replacment will cost the insurance company many times an individual's cash cost to replace just as the .10 Tylenol will cost $3 on the hospital bill. I'm not saying it's right but it is the nature of the beast.
If you want to talk about fraud when it comes to roofing then we'd talk about mechanical damages; but, that's another thread entirely.
Reply author: webmaster@loridiaz.com
Replied on: 10/06/2003 11:43:05
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by fivedaily
Let's talk about hail damage... I have been pondering recently whether or not it is actually true that the hail damage will be visible in 6 months if it is not visible during my current inspection.
I have seen these idea passed around recently and want to have further discussion and input.
Now, as a young adjuster, I went out on a re-i request 3-4 months after my initial denial of hail damage and did find hail damage to warrant repairs to the roof. Was this because I was not thorough enough at the initial inspection? Or was it simply that the damage could not be found?
I have even used this idea as a way to pacify homeowners if they weren't happy with my denial, actually believing what I was telling them (because of the above scenario).
I was particularly disturbed the other day when a roofer met me at a loss and after we scoured the roof the best we could, we found NO hail damage except to some box vents. He had called the claim in for the homeowner claiming hail damage to the roof. After I told him I wasn't buying it, he flippantly said, "wait 6 months, the next adjuster will." That upset me for so many reasons which I know you felt in a visceral way as you read his comment to me.
I guess what I really want to know is, if I look hard enough the first time, can I find that same damage that will possibly show up 6 months later? If I can, how much harder are we talking? An extra 5 minutes per test square? And extra 30 minutes?
I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions or thoughts anyone has on this, from any side of the proverbial fence.
Just do me one favor... let's not get all partisian or flaming here. I like my topics to stay friendly. :-)
Jennifer
Reply author: JWill
Replied on: 10/06/2003 11:45:31
Message:
Has anyone ever been on a roof when one of the haag inspectors was there? I have an interesting scenario to share once all has responded.
In my travels I've experienced several of such and each is different. Please tell of yours.
Reply author: webmaster@loridiaz.com
Replied on: 10/06/2003 11:50:14
Message:
Jennifer:
Contractors in our state always pull that one. I have some documentation that I received on the subject of hail. Hopefully I can find it.
Some insurance companies will not pay for "hail damage" if it does not damage the "structural integrity of the roof". I have been up on roofs where damage to the vents due to hail were obvious but there was no damage to the asphalt shingle itself. His remark about it showing up six months later is a good one. I could probably name the contractor in your area that told you that one.
Reply author: webmaster@loridiaz.com
Replied on: 10/08/2003 03:47:13
Message:
While we are on the subject of hail...I have a question for everyone. I wish I had read "watch the company you work for". I just worked four claims for them and I'm wondering if I'll get paid. I don't work for them anymore.
Anyway. I worked another hail claim.
I hope I can explain this roof correctly where you guys can understand it. Large gable with three smaller gables attached to the large gable in the front of the home. One smaller gable in the rear and then a flat lean to section. Asphalt shingle approximately five years old.
The inside company is Kemper. With Kemper you have to call the adjuster while you are at the scene. The hail barely damaged the front three slopes and there were spot damage on the two main slopes. (We are talking maybe less than five to ten shingles on the entire roof) The damage is minimal. Seven houses had their insurance companies pay for new roofs. My entire scope to replace the entire roof was approximately 30 square to replace.
I had recommended in my report $750 that would actually repair the spotted areas. I had also mentioned to the adjuster that homes on both sides of the insured had their entire roofs replaced and several homes across the street. I explained to the adjuster that if "the insured made a stink" about spot repairs to pay for half of the roof and then pay the rest once she actually replaces the roof. Her home is well kept and the area is well kept. Although the structural integrity of the roof was fine on the main gables I had included them as part of the replacement of the entire roof in case the kemper adjuster wanted to pay it.
I finished this claim two-three weeks ago and the adjuster left a message for me last night wanting to know "how many inches per square were damaged". I did not call him back yet. I can tell you barely any inches per square were damaged. The Insured had a contractor (I bet it was the same one for the other seven houses) tell her she had to have the entire roof replaced. (Sound familiar?)
Anyway my question is how would you guys approach payment? I would like to have an answer for this guy at Kemper today if possible. This is the second claim I have handled for Kemper and I get the strange feeling they don't like to pay people.
Reply author: jlombardo
Replied on: 10/08/2003 06:48:07
Message:
Give him an honest answer...were they small hits??Tell him so.....How many hits per test square were there and what is the RDF factor for that roof?? Are repairs feasible???? Or is the roof shot, making repairs most likely unsuccessful......Kemper,ummm, you are probably working for ICA, Orlando......HAVE you spoken to the branch manager as to what to do....her name is Ms. Antinucci.....she should be able to guide you, shouldn't she???? After all, she is the manager of the claims office......
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/08/2003 14:49:37
Message:
I have adjusters liscence, and also am a roofer. How can you say that granules being knocked off by hail is not damage?
I was on roof a roof in Texas, with an adjuster from Farmers. There had to be an inch of granules in the gutters. The aforementioned adjuster said "these are 30 year shingles, they are designed to lose granules" obviously he is wrong. That was in May. I met a new adjuster this week and got the homeowner a new roof. Granule damage leads to failure of the shingle.
Thanks
Brooks
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/08/2003 15:26:40
Message:
We have 5 pages of debate on the aforementioned, found in the Coverage forum, under the thread "Is granule loss considered hail damage?". Remember, lots of lovely 'discussions' about diminished value, and those sorts of things?
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/08/2003 18:41:14
Message:
Yes, to the roofer who wants to know... go see the varied opinions at the forum Clayton mentioned.
Let's not muddy my nice friendly hail damage play house with this disagreeable conversation.
Jennifer
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/08/2003 19:01:10
Message:
Granular loss from hail is not shingle damage any more than granular loss from wind, or rain or foot traffic is damage. If you got an adjutster to pay for hail damage and there was no visible impact mark anywhere on the shingle then you and that adjuster are complicit in insurance fraud.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/08/2003 19:05:22
Message:
Webmaster, are you sure he asked you how many inches per square or how many hits per square. I've never hear anyone use inches damaged per square as a measure for evaluating hail damage.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/08/2003 20:54:04
Message:
Here we go CCarr! The beast has awakened! Forgive me Jen!
Brooks, what is granule damage? Please explain.
Also, Webmister, to tell whether a roof is hail damaged or not, you have to look at the shingles on the roof, not the granules in the gutters. Please send me a copy of the "granules per inch" rule for composition roofing that Farmers puts out. I will frame it next to Good Hands' "Adjusting for Dummies" book. I collect nonsense.
I've missed ya Ice Dog! I'll be around.
CD
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/08/2003 21:33:25
Message:
Oh my Hurricane, I hope "it" doesn't happen to your cozy thread. Honestly, my earlier post wasn't meant as a 'stir stick' for this thread, but more as a 'strainer' to try and stop any erosion of this thread that I speculated could happen after reading the post I responded to.
An inch of granules in the gutters equals a requirement for a new roof? That reminds me back in the great days of the early 70's as a staff adjuster. Workloads and manpower requirements were measured by the height of the pending claim file piles on one's desk and surrounding floor. In the days before everyday use of computer technology, new file counts and closed ratios were kept manually, but didn't carry near the impact of the aforementioned piles. It took the semi-annual visit by the semi-grand poobah from HO to do an audit, where he would have to look around your piles to speak to an adjuster, to finally conclude at the Friday morning wrap up that he thought we could use another adjuster.
Yes it was a period of fast growth and / or poor underwriting in a thriving region, but the knots on our ties were not too tight to quickly realize how we should supplement the actual piles on our desks twice a year with filing cabinet dogs, to make the piles teeter ever so high to ensure approval for another person. To take from Kile's concluding statement, comparatively, I was a co-conspirator in complicit human resources fraud. Hopefully, I won't be judged as harshly as is due in the situation he describes. We needed more people to round out our company ball team and have a bigger crowd at our Christmas parties.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/08/2003 21:49:57
Message:
Clayton, that sure does sound like a great employment program. If we want to jumpstart the economy down here maybe we should stack a bunch of files on our desks and we can solve our little job slump.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/09/2003 09:28:57
Message:
Greetings Kile:
The only person a party to insurance fraud would be you, not paying the insured for a roof. Granule loss in this case was caused by pea sized hail, there were thousands of hits on this roof.
I know you guys know everything though, because you have a coiple of years experience, so I will re-evaluate, my years in the building industry.
Later
Brooks
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/09/2003 09:39:21
Message:
Sorry, but this subject has me worked up.
Cat Daddy & Kile, you are trying to tell me, that if you go up on a roof, and granules are knocked off by the thousands, that this is not hail damage. Just because there are not huge bruises does not mean there is no damage. I have roofs to do until next April,( our main business is torch down, on small commercial projects) I am not trying to scam anyone, I am looking out for the homeowners. Then it turns into competition. On 3 re-inspects I have been on, the homeowner got a roof in all 3 cases.
Looking forward to the competition.
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/09/2003 09:45:52
Message:
I like that phrase "say what you mean and mean what you say". Brooks, if you say, "there were thousands of hits on the roof", is that a finding based on your and the attending adjuster's inspection of impact marks on the shingles? If so, the conclusion about a new roof requirement would / could be credible and correct. However, if as you said previously about the granule accumulation in the gutters, is your measuring stick, i.e. equating granule accumulation per ounce or per handful to per 100 assumed hits; that doesn't seem to be an acceptable method of shingle damage assessment or evaluation.
Accusations about "fraud" really don't belong in this discussion for many reasons.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/09/2003 09:52:33
Message:
1 more thing.Wind , short of a hurricane, or tornado, will not cause granule loss. So I guess that proves granule loss is roof damage.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/09/2003 15:55:44
Message:
Eventually, it all comes full circle. Have you been here too long when a subject we beat into the ground not so long ago raises its ugly head again? "It" is coming to this quiet little thread. We cannot stop it now! I smell tailfeathers!
Brooks the Construction Student, granules come off when it rains. Is the roof damaged then?
Reply author: webmaster@loridiaz.com
Replied on: 10/09/2003 17:02:05
Message:
Thanks to the guys that responded to my specific question. I spoke with the Examiner today. The two large slopes had a couple of dings each. What I mean is maybe two dings per square if that had damage. It was the three front gables that had a little more. The roof is five years old. The only other dings were on the vents. I think I forgot to mention that this is a gated community. The area is well kept. I believe the Examiner decided to take a straight 50% holdback and will reimburse her for the entire roof. I did not see any other damage. He did speak with the insured today so it has finally been settled.
Reply author: webmaster@loridiaz.com
Replied on: 10/09/2003 17:15:19
Message:
It does not look like my message posted. Again thanks guys for your response. I spoke with the Examiner today and I believe he is paying the Insured less 50% depreciation. Of course once she replaces the roof he will reimburse her. The roof was five years old and the two main gables barely had any damage and the front slopes had more. This is a gated community and the homes are well kept.
I noticed some of the responses to Jennifer and my questions. I hope I can find that info on Hail that I received from a company that I once worked for as an inside adjuster. I like Mr. Brooks response. Some of these companies in certain states are not paying stating that the "structural integrity of the roof is not damaged and since it is still functioning it should not be covered under the peril of hail". Good argument but I wonder if this ever won in court.
Thanks to Mr. Lombardo especially!!!!
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/09/2003 19:15:46
Message:
Brooks, pea sized hail does not damage a roof. PERIOD. Wind does displace granules, foot trafic displaces granules, birds and squirles running across the roof displace granules, roofers applying a roof displace granules. By your logic the roof is damaged in the process of applying it. Try to sell that one. By your logic then, every insurance company should pay to replace every roof that is new and then subrogate against the roofer for damaging it in the process of installing it. How about them apples?
Reply author: jlombardo
Replied on: 10/09/2003 19:46:24
Message:
EVERYONE....HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/09/2003 20:18:24
Message:
Now Kile, be easy with Brooks the Roofer Construction student. Maybe he has not read that chapter yet. Dont spoil the ending for him.
Also, wind-driven pea-sized hail can damage a shingle. Just an observation.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/09/2003 20:55:54
Message:
there was an error, see below.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/09/2003 20:57:53
Message:
CatDaddy, I'll give you that one. But it will be visible damage. Even if you have to get on your knees and search. Otherwise it isn't damage. And what kind of peas are we talking about? Is it black eyed peas or those big green summer peas or the Le Seur petite-pois with the little mushrooms and coctail onions, you know, the ones in the silver can. Those cocktail onions would leave a mark and the mushrooms will leave a very funny looking mark.
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/09/2003 21:02:35
Message:
Okay now... peas are mushy and would splat on impact. Think more like bb's.
Jennifer
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/09/2003 21:05:15
Message:
But the cocktail onion goes good with a little Bombay Safire in a frozen glass (extra dirty).
Reply author: okclarryd
Replied on: 10/10/2003 08:17:37
Message:
Hail damage is kinda like "Ugly". It's all in the eye of the beholder. The inspection process should be the same from claim to claim and in many aspects, it is. But.......... I have found that when on the roof, I need to look a little to the side or up or down but not directly at the shingle or tab. Not at a 90% angle. If you "slant" your perspective, the damage is much easier to recognize. And, there's nothing wrong with finding "No visible damage AT THIS TIME" Call 'em like you see 'em.
Reply author: Glowtom
Replied on: 10/10/2003 16:21:57
Message:
Many times hail damage to fiberglass shingles is not apparent immediately after the storm. The granules have been loosened but are still in their original position on the shingle. After several heavy rains these loosened granules will wash off the roof. If you are on a roof just after a storm, get down close to the shingle and pound the roof with your hand. You can see the loose granules move at the hail hits. Do not "walk" a roof looking for damage. Move from one place to another and stop. We all have found one hit, then another, and then they all pop out at you. This rarely happens when you are moving on a roof.
Slight granual loss is usually inconsequential. Heavy granual loss is fatal. Everything in between is the problem.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/12/2003 09:14:47
Message:
So who wins? The granule camp, or non-granule camp. This has been very interesting to this student.
Be careful on all roofs, and don't slip on any sound roofs, covered in loose granules.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/12/2003 18:10:23
Message:
We all do Brooks. You, the roofer, get to call granule loss hail damage. And we, the adjusters, get to ask the insured to get another roofer because the one they have now does not know what they are talking about. We both get to do our jobs. Its a win-win situation!
Good luck!
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/12/2003 23:01:56
Message:
I'm working in a small town that hasn't seen a hail storm in 30 years, until May 4th of this year. I was on a roof recently with a roofer because the homeowner wanted his roofer there when I inspected. He showed me blisters, scuff marks and stress cracks and granles in the gutters and curled shingles and called it all hail damage. I know this may sound typical to most of you but the funny part is there was real hail damage that he didn't even point out. I paid for the roof because we owed for it, but this roofer was staring hail damage straight in the face and he couldn't even see it. As I kept saying no, that's not hail damage I was waiting for him to point out what I could see without having to look very hard and was obvious to me. He was pointing out what he thought was hail damage because he has been a roofer in this town for 20 years and has never seen hail damage. Even though he has 15yrs more experience than I do on roofs, he has no hail experience. I've seen thousands of hail damaged roofs in the last 5 years, he hasn't seen any in the last 20.
I just thought this was a story you guys would get a kick out of.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/13/2003 21:38:47
Message:
Cat, what will really happen, is the roofer will tell the homeowner, that the adjuster doesn't know hail damage when they see it. We will call for a re-inspect, and 9 times out of 10 we will get the insured a new roof.
I have another question have you ever heard of a tile roof cracking because of expansion. This is on a straight gable, with 2 valleys on the dwelling. Its a 4 & 12 pitch, so there are no nails. Wouldn't the tiles on the edge expand also, allowing all the shingles in the field room to expand?
State Farm adjuster said there engineers have proven this theory of expansion cracks. Oncec again called for a re-inspect and the homeowner recieved a new roof.
Later
BLT
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/13/2003 22:14:43
Message:
Well, Brooks. I think I can prove your theory wrong. How do you get a new roof 9 times out of 10. Who do you think is doing the reinspections? In case you are wondering it is me, or any of a number of experienced adjusters who are working cleanup just like I am. I have reinspected several roofs over the past few months and I guarantee you that I have not paid for anywhere near 9 out of 10. I bet the number is more like 3 of 10. I have 3 tomorrow that I have already reinspected without the roofer and there is no damage and I'm going to meet the roofer out there tomorrow so he can show me what he calls damage. I'll let you know how many of those I end up paying for.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/14/2003 08:14:08
Message:
BLT, under what situation were these 9 out of 10 roofs paid for? Granule loss? I don't think so.
The "theory of expansion cracks"? Expand from what also? The only theory I know about expansion cracks is they are NOT COVERED as they are associated with normal wear or manufacturers defects. Case by case basis.
Let Professor Anderson and I know when you are ready for the advanced classes. For now, you'd better leave the training wheels on.
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/14/2003 09:37:13
Message:
BLT, I noticed you totally ignored my previous point. Why is granule loss considered damage when hail causes it, but not considered damage when rain or the installing roofer causes it? How fine of a line are you drawing here?
Reply author: Johnd
Replied on: 10/14/2003 13:19:06
Message:
BLT I would be interested in hearing more about tile expansion. I live in the Phoenix, Arizona area. If tile is going to expand, it sure would here in the 120 deg summer temps with some reaching the high roof temps of 160 degrees. Never seen this tile expansion out here is this something that only texas roofers can recognize?
John Durham
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/14/2003 14:40:40
Message:
Ok replys to all
1. Cat - Yes granule loss caused by hail . Doesnt bruise shingle, but knocks off massive amounts of granules, where you can see the asphalt on most of the roof. Training wheels have been off quite some time, but I am always willing to learn. Especially from someone who knows everything.
2. Kile - Because hail does lots more damage than wind, rain, but probably not installation. I don't think y'all get it. This was like shooting the roof with Puff (C 1-30 with gatling guns mounted)
3. John - You did not read my question. Texas roofers do not recognize tile damage due to heat expansion. That was what an adjuster told me. Now I know adjusters have seen it all & done it all, but this guy is crazy. The tile has room to expand in every direction. It's not like it is set up in forms, with no place to expand.
Look forward to more
BLT
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/14/2003 19:32:49
Message:
BLT, I am not going to say NEVER have I paid for a roof that had severe granule loss. I remember the one, 7 years ago. Denver. It was not the only reason we bought it, just a contributing factor. It was old and they also came off to the mat when you walked on it. We have all been on those types of roofs; you sweep the impact mark with your finger and all the granules come off, down to the paper. Maybe one of those.
If you are going to tell the insured they need a new roof everytime you find granules in the gutters, you are wrong.
And concerning your comment to Kile in your last post, there is no such thing as a little damage. It is damaged or it is not. You can't say a little bit of granule loss is normal wear and alot of normal wear constitutes damage. I guess you want to see it whatever way gets you a job or a paycheck, right?
And the tile expansion thing, what in the h-e double l are you talking about? Are you saying expansion cracks in tile roofing is a covered loss
under a homeowners policy? Wouldn't that be like a thermal crack in a composite shingle and NOT COVERED? Read Johnny Durham's post. I worked a hail storm in Tempe last year. It is Africa hot out there and they ain't crack'n.
You're making your posts from a rehab facility are you?
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/14/2003 21:42:34
Message:
Greetings Cat:
Y'all have me coming to this site everytime I am home. What the deal is on the tile expansion, is that State Farm said the damage was caused by expansion. There is no way, we had some baseball hail. Not he-double L. This is a Monier Lifetile roof. You cannot get these tiles anywhere that would match existing roof. (Like kind and quality). To find this tile you have to go through salvage yards. Like I said earlier, our main business is small commercial jobs. (fast food type size.)We searched all of our resources and could not find the tile anywhere close.
The reason we are working hail damage is that a large portion of commercial work is now in Iraq. 2 weeks ago we sent 4 million sheets of plywood there. ( source Construction news Daily) Now decking in Texas has gone from $11.00 to $20.00.
Now back to my subject, the tile was damaged by hail, and State Farm says it is expansion.
When I get my Texas liscence you should let me come work for you.
I have personally been on a black 30 year, that was 140 degrees when we laid a thermometer on it.
I will say that I have learned an awful lot since discovering this site. I don't completely agree with HAAG, but it is a learning thing.
Look forward to your reply
Brooks
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/14/2003 22:42:21
Message:
Now you're getting into it Brooks. I try to tell these guys a little revolution is good every now and then. You're coming to the site everytime you come home and everyone else is coming to see what you, I, and Mr. Anderson are yapping about. Its the circle of life!
Ok. I see what you are trying to say about the tiles now. So Big Red had Haag look at the tiles and they said expansion, not hail damage? Haag can be funny like that. I'd have to examine these suspect tiles to give you my opinion but those Haag guys are pretty thorough.
Also, most insurance carriers do not pay to match. They will allow only to replace the broken tiles so quit lick'n your chops on that whole roof replacement cost and your hunk of the O&P. Better luck next time.
You call me when you get that Texas licence. I did not realize you were not old enough drive yet. It does explain alot of your ideas though!
See you next round,
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/14/2003 22:44:57
Message:
Not to get political but the reason the cost of plywood went up has alot more to do with the wet spring and summer and the fires out west. There was simply less timber available so the price went up. The DOD only purchased $50 million in plywood, hardly a blip in a $2 billion industry and certainly not enough to make the price double. USA today had the story a few weeks ago, just before the hurricane hit.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/14/2003 23:01:48
Message:
Greetings Confrees:
Yep' I got a lot to learn,but to my grave I will insist excessive granule loss is legit.
I cannot tell you how much I like all this. Now instead of competition, I would like y'all to become unmired from tradition.
Is there a webssite for HAAG. I could not find in Google search.
Also I looked up y'alls credintials, and I think I can throw a horseshoe that big. Thats tossing a bunch of S around though.
BLT
Thanks
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/14/2003 23:23:23
Message:
Tell ya what Brook. When you go, we will bury you in granules. How's that sound to you. It would seem only fitting.
You wouldnt believe how many people think that is REALLY me throwing the toilet seats in that photo. Its not. It is actually my good friend Jim Flynnt. We buried him not too long ago after a long bout with terminal stupidity. But rumor has it he has cheated death once again and when the moon is full, his alter-ego comes to feed!
www.haagengineering.com. The operators are waiting for your call!
You stick around Brooks and we'll all learn something. Just dont take the cheap shots too seriously and you'll do fine. Heck, maybe you'll be lucky enough to say something so stupid that the great Ghostbuster will chime in on ya and roast your tailfeathers and entire nether region. I can remember the first time it happened to me. Stang like all get out!
And by the way, you're wrong about that whole granule/tile expansion thing.
CD
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/14/2003 23:34:58
Message:
Cat:
Thank you for that website.
Man y'all keep laying in to me and I will continue to learn more. You folks got to be tired of learning, and that will make me more valuable.
By the way, our O&P is only 24% we have to cover our general liability.
Thanks again
BLT
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/14/2003 23:40:39
Message:
Mr Aanderson & Mr. Cat:
The HAAG website is incredible. I went to SWT, and when I built rollercoasters i saw 2 cranes collapse. While I was looking over my shoulder running away.
Those claims they show off are the ones I would really like to work. I have worked extensive heights with coasters & cell towers. I know there must be some place for me.
Until then, I will fight the good fight for granule loss.
Your Student
BLT
Reply author: okclarryd
Replied on: 10/15/2003 07:38:08
Message:
Hey, Brooks, granules in the gutters only signifies granule loss, not the cause of said loss. The "cause of loss" is what determines coverage (that's a check). A roof loses granules daily from exposure to the elements. We have all seen the roofs that are threadbare with fiberglass shining that are 20 years old and have seen very little if any hail. There is no coverage for that circumstance. From what you have been saying (and not saying), if the shingles are losing granules, the insurance company should provide coverage (issue a check). Probably not.
I, for one (and apparently the only one) appreciate your viewpoint from the roofer's view. I don't necessarily agree but I appreciate it. Wasn't it Patton that said "Know thine enemy"??
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/15/2003 08:45:39
Message:
I appreciate him for the same reason Larry. Its like my ole' mamma use to say, "Stupid is as stupid does."
CD
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/15/2003 12:19:15
Message:
Why are we enemies?
How much of an adjusters work, is roof claims? Without roofers, y'all wouldn't have all this work.
BLT
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/15/2003 13:16:19
Message:
A "roofer" has nothing to do with an "adjuster's work". The "work" would still be there without the likes of you. Our "work" is with the roof and its components and parts.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/15/2003 15:22:24
Message:
You have it backwards Brooksie. YOU wouldnt have all the work you have without US. You may get to a policyholders house first and tell the what you think but we are the decision makers. The experts on what is covered and what is not; what is damaged and what is not. It is our opinion that matters. We have the checkbook. You are just a byproduct of what WE do.
Reply author: Johnd
Replied on: 10/15/2003 17:08:25
Message:
Brooks:
If you are really into talking with all your buddies and impressing them with your knowledge of roofing and granule loss, tile expansion, etc. why dont you try this webpage where you will no doubt feel right at home. www.roofingcontractor.com Who knows, you might even learn something. An example of your roofing buddies on how they handle a little old lady who complained about their work is offered below.
Re: dealing with problem customers
Posted By buck dowell on 10/9/2003 at 11:19 PM
tell her to go to hell. lol. just worked today. i ain't like the rest of these pretty boy roofers. i'm uncivilized. i descend from vikings.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/15/2003 19:43:57
Message:
Hola Amigo's:
Couldn't wait to see the replies to my last observation.
CCarr you have waited a while to jump on the pile. What do you mean "The likes of you"? Our company and me are very professional, and reputable. We donated material & labor for 2 roofs for Habitat for Humanity in September. That is pretty generous for a small outfit like ours. Also with the average deductible on residential loss, in our area being $1,500 - $2,500 do you think we are going to lead the insured to believe they need a roof if they don't? They are not stupid if they can afford a house like that.
Until next time
BLT
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/15/2003 19:49:28
Message:
John D:
Thanks for the website. I will surely feel almost as at home as I do here. Why would a guy tell his customer to go to hell? We try to screen the problem customers, and we bid the job accordingly. We have to give any one who has us come out a quote, if they need one. We try to price ourself out of the job. You can usually tell the problems within 5 minutes.
Thanks again for passing that site to me.
BLT
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/15/2003 21:34:49
Message:
Unlike you, Brooks, we can't sweep the problem customers under the rug. We have to be profesional enough to handle EVERYTHING that comes our way, problems or not. You've just confirmed a long standing feeling that most adjusters have had. Roofers intentionally inflate estimates. Thanks for the info.
Reply author: Catmandale
Replied on: 10/16/2003 01:50:20
Message:
I have been watching this thread with much interest, and I see that it has again degenerated into a free for all against roofers.
I have had my issues with some individual roofers ( and other contractors). It seems though, that a vocal few think they are the devil incarnate. As with any profession, and the society at large, there are good and bad.
Mr. Brooks has an opinion, which many of us agree with... to a point. It seems petty to treat him badly just because he doesn't see how really wise and fair and all-knowing all of us adjusters are.
Just out of curiosity, I visited the website linked in a previous post. It seesm that the roofers also have an avenue of information exchange and fellowship, much like CADO. Good for them. As for "buck dowell", his post is not far from some seen on CADO. Taken in context, the whole thread, a contractor was trying to figure out how to handle a customer relations issue. He got varying opinions and comments, just like here.
Having been a contractor in my past life, I can tell you that some people are just hard to deal with and the high bid can be a valid way to chase them away or at least make the battle worth your while. A contractor has a right to bid whatever he wants, he just may not get the job, or keep his people busy. By the way, how did the customer go from being just "she" to being a "litle old lady"? Bias, and careless reporting.
Our profession requires that we interact with customers, contractors and others. A little courtesy and empathy can go a long way. I try to show respect until proven it is undeserved.
I will now take my place as the new target of the day.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/16/2003 07:41:16
Message:
Anderson:
Do you interpret insurance policies the way you did my post? If so the insured are in trouble. Get a new job if you don't like dealing with problem customers, we are allowed to price a project at what ever we want. If we are high bid, but the best, why can't the homeowner chose us. Do you know anything about a free market place, or the bidding process for a construction project? No body I have ever worked with has tried to fix pricing, except for the insurance industry, and its representatives. You don't know anything about my market, and seem to hard headed to see the truth or try to learn something new.
Later
BLT
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/16/2003 08:11:38
Message:
1 more thing:
John D you need to read what I asked about tile expansion. Once again tile was hail damaged . The adjuster is the one who said tile was damaged from heat expansion.
I wouldn't want you interpreting my policy, because you seem to see what you want to see when reading something.
BLT
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/16/2003 08:57:14
Message:
Let me see, you said that if you didn't really want a job you just throw a really high bid at it and hope it goes away. Well, for you, it may go away. But for the adjuster who doesn't have the option of just walking away from the customer it then becomes a real headache. The insured calls my office upset because I don't know what I'm doing and I short changed him and I owe him more money because his roofer said it would cost 50% more than I said it would.
How exactly was I supposed to interpret your post. You admitted that you inflate estimates. And I'm sure that occasionally you get jobs out of those inflated estimates. I caught a roofer doing just that to a little old lady a few weeks ago and I broke it down for him. I subtracted the costs of all of the material and dump fees and it turned out he was charging $150 a square for labor. When I asked him why he was charging so much for labor he hung up on me. I called the little old lady's son who was handling the claim for her and told him the story and he said "Well I won't do business with that guy, he sounds very unprofesional".
A couple of weeks later the lady's son calls me back and tells me he got three more bids and they were all less than our adjusters estimate so they got the roof done by one of them and they are happy. Then he said the best part "You know Mr. Anderson, I think that guy was trying to gouge my mom because I talked to the neighbor and that guy did their roof for the price you guys had estimated." Out of curiosity I asked the man for the neighbors name and he gave it to me. I looked it up and the neighbor's roof was essentially the same as the little old lady's and we had paid them only $50 more than the little old lady, yet the roofer wanted $2000 more to do the work. No, roofers never inflate prices.
If you are the high bid, but you are the best, the insured certainly has the right to choose you to do the work, but if there are 5 other contractor's and they are all doing the same work for much less, the insurance company doesn't have to pay your prices. If the insured insists on using your services he can pay the difference.
Brooks, I'd like to thank you for finally actually admitting that you guys do it.
I know it sounds like I'm painting all roofers with the same brush, but I'm not. I know several roofers that are fine people and if it wasn't an ethical problem I'd enjoy having lunch or playing a round of golf with them. I'm also sure that there are even more good roofers that I just haven't hear of because they charge fair prices and our insureds get their work done without ever having to call us back. It is only the bad ones that I hear about because those are the ones that the insureds need to call us in on.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/16/2003 09:14:49
Message:
Brooks, you stepped in it now boy. You broke the "roofer's code" and let out a secret we all suspected was true anyway. You can post all ya want but you will forever be the gouging roofer. You would be better off to be dubbed a sex offender.
Boys, clean this mess up!
CD
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/16/2003 16:20:10
Message:
Cat:
I don't gouge because when I don't want a job, I price myself right out of the market. I have never done a project that we bid high, so that eliminates gouging. Are you guys communist, don't believe in free enterprise, and making all the money you can. Its not my fault that y'all are mired with some pricing guidelines. If I do a proper job, complete the work, and offer a warranty, I can charge whatever I like. I have never called a carrier and asked for more money. I don't know what my customers do.
And at least I have sex.
Brooks
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/16/2003 17:36:04
Message:
Catdaddy, remember the day you got hosed by Ol'Dragons Breath? Well, good buddy, I tanked up the gas and it's your turn at the trigger.
Enjoy!
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/16/2003 19:01:58
Message:
Brooks, If you don't want the job, why make a bid at all? Just tell the homeowner you are not interested. Seems that would save EVERYONE (you, homeowner, insurance co.) unnecessary headaches.
I have only been on the insurance side of the equation. I can't make sense of writing a bid for a job you don't want. Can someone enlighten me?
Jnnifer
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/16/2003 19:29:50
Message:
I remember that day well GB. I've had to have 3 skin grafts and some of my hair still hasn’t grown back.
Can you believe this guy? You know these guys are out there; you look for them when you're working but they are hard to see....then the idiot of the whole village comes walking right up to you. Then he opens his mouth, and confirms every suspicion you ever had about the whole stink'n lot. Mark this one off you list boys. We were right.
BLT, you’re too stupid to realize every word in every post you make shows us all just how much you don’t know and what you really are. It’s like looking a train wreck. We can’t look away. Jacking up your prices, granule damage, expanding tile damage? And you ask us if we are communist.
Do us all a favor and head back over to the RoofingContractors.com Mutual Admiration Society and share your intellect with them. From what I have seen of you so far, they might elect you their King. You’re all a waste of skin.
By the way, taking yourself to McDonalds for nuggets in your flatbed with no air, then heading back home to put lipstick and mascara on your right hand doesn’t make it sex. Better luck next time.
I’ll buy the gas next time Ghost. Thanks.
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/16/2003 19:38:08
Message:
Brooks, you say you have never done a project that you bid high. While I find that hard to believe, what would you do if you bid a simple 5/12, 3 tab roof at $250 a square and the homeowner, not knowing any better and trusting you to be an honest man as you state that you are, says "Can you start tomorrow?" Do you A. Say "Well, you look like an honest guy. I'll do it for half that, B. Look at the bid again and say, "Hey, wait a minute, I over bid this, let me fix that for you, now that looks alot better now doesn't it?" or C. Do the job for the price quoted and laugh about the stupid customer you just screwed with your buddies over a beer the next day.
I think we all know the answer.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/16/2003 23:45:58
Message:
Lets see what you got boys:
Kile - I have some respect for you, because I started laying on the roofs and looking at them. You are right, the damage, or none shows better. At least I also know you are fit enough to do that manuever. I would never charge that much ($350). For a problem child on a 3-tab with no steep, it would be $110 on & off.Any other roofer around D/FW would do it for $100, or less.
Cat - I don't know how to respond to you, but also you read things like you want to. I don't know what makes you such an expert, except that you are a decent writer. How many hail damaged roofs do you have to see to be an expert? I think after about 10.
As always I have enjoyed
BLT
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/17/2003 00:02:35
Message:
Jennifer:
If there is damage at an insureds prroperty, our policy is to give a proposal. It really infuriates people when you offer tham a no bid. We have never had a BB complaint, and don't wan't one.
Cat - Stupid?
BLT
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/17/2003 00:58:32
Message:
Cat Daddy:
After having some time to wind down and think it over, I don't see how you have explained anything, except that you are the stupid 1 here, you have not supported any argument you have except for calling me stupid & the village idiot. Obviously you did not read Hillary's book.
Write all the checks you like, or not. What sets pricing guidelines in construction, is material cost, labor, and profit. Not some know it all adjuster. New construction is the guideline of the industry, not some catastrophic damage. How much new building is going on in Louisiana?
BLT
Reply author: Tom Toll
Replied on: 10/17/2003 07:22:42
Message:
There are good and bad on both sides. Roofers that gouge and adjusters who write what is not there to increase their revenue. When we arrived in V.B., I called five roofers to get an idea of pricing. Four were giving decent prices and one was 25% higher, explaining that he was the best in town. He offered to pick us up in his limo and show us the town. Needless to say, I politely told him where to put his limo and prices.
On the other hand, there was an adjuster that totaled a roof with four missing tabs. A roof that was 5 years old, still pliable with 90% of orignal granulation intact. No lifting or breaking. The difference in estimates, over $4,000.00.
It behooves all of us to learn as much as we can about roofing and the damage it sustains in any type of catastophe. Natural deterioration is not a covered loss, but catastrophic damage is. We need to know the difference, and I for one appreciate roofers posting here, as their view may better serve us down the road.
I grow concerned about this industry that I have been a part of almost 44 years. I see the insurance industry trying to set prices and then the roofers trying to set prices, leaving the adjuster in the middle. Low schedules invite exaggeration of loss, so now the adjuster must depend on volume of claim count and not quality. I fear I am from the old school, if it is not there, don't pay it, but if it is there, pay everything the insured is entitled to.
This is one reason we need an adjusters organization, so these issues can be addressed and resolved. Are we seeing an interest in an organization, NO, just grumbling and negativity about our industry and the construction industry. I have always felt that if we cannot make a decent living in this industry and be professional and honest, then we need to look for another trade. I love this trade and would not leave it for anything. It is a pain in the tuckus, but it is also rewarding with a job well done. Consider this, SOPPA-Society of Professional Property Adjusters. It would work!!
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/17/2003 07:53:55
Message:
Tom, I've seen a few times now in the last month or so where you have spoken affirmatively about some kind of adjuster organization; while at the same time commenting that any such discussion is going nowhere but that it 'could' work.
I would welcome any thoughts you might have concerning how to get this idea moving forward, and any details on how it 'would' work to the benefits of its members.
I've got a headache from beating the same tune for too many months, damn, I can't even get people to participate in a survey about those "low schedules" you mention.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/17/2003 09:05:52
Message:
Greetings :
Finally some legitimate responses.
We can all learn from one another. Not just roofing, but from the slab up. Also common courtesy.
For real Tom, did a poor ole roofer offer you a ride in his limo. If that is true, thats one great story. That gives me some hope. According to Catdaddy roofers drive old beat up flat beds. And eat chicken mcnuggets. Whats a mcnugget?
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/17/2003 09:21:03
Message:
Brooks,
If you and your roofing friends are doing roofs for $110/sq in DFW you must be an honest enough guy. Here in the backwater of Paducah, KY they want anywhere from $120 to $150/sq. But of course it is alot harder to find the type of labor pool you have in DFW. Those guys can really put on a roof.
As far as being an expert on hail after 10 roofs, well, I've been chasing storms for 5 years and have looked at I would guess in excess of 3000 roofs on hail claims and I'd have to say I'm still not an expert. Every storm is different and every roof is different. I know things are bigger in Texas, even the hail stones. Here in KY the hail was anywhere from tennis ball sized down to almost sleet. It isn't easy to explain to a homeowner that even though the metal vents have BB sized dents on them there is no damage to the roof. It's even more difficult to explain to people that the reason the guy across the street got a new roof is because he was negligent in the maintenance of his property and his roof was paper thin so any sized hail at all would damage it so he's getting a new roof and you're not.
Some hail is big and hard and does really good damage. Some hail is big and soft and doesn't do much or any damage. Some hail is small and hard and you can't see the damage unless you get on your knees and look for it. I don't think anyone can ever be a true expert in this field, but every roof gives you that much more experience.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/17/2003 10:33:50
Message:
TT, isnt CADO a type of adjuster's organization? We all talk about every aspect of the industry here. And I am sure people are more open with their ideas on CADO than in a room looking all of you in the eye.
Now if you are talking about something more like a union, with union ideas, and trying to throw some weight around, that's something different. And probably the end of the job you love so well.
Just my thoughts.
Brooks, I have no comments. A story of a roofer with a limo says it all. Doctors drive Tahoes. Roofers have limos. That kinda says it all.
Hopefully our paths will cross one day. I have added it to my wish list.
CD
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/17/2003 16:14:49
Message:
Yeah that thing where the neighbor gets a roof, but the other guy doesn't is tough. This 1 home had giant oak trees all around it, 30 year roof, and a 10&12. This lady was pissed that I told her she had no damage. (remember i'm the roofer) We were on the house across the street a 6&12, 30 year, and completely in the open it was hammered. I vow to you that I crawled all over that ladies house and couldn't find damage. She called another contractor out ( 1 of them that gives us a bad name), and somehow he got her a new roof. I also think the brand of shingles makes a difference. GAF & Elk seem to hold up the best.
In D/FW storm this year some of the adjusters I ran into were inexperienced, and didn't like crawling on steep roofs. Could they have possibly signed off without really looking at the roof.
Cat - Peace man. My plans are to become a staff adjuster here in D/FW, learn the business and software. Also let my daughter get a little older, so she can understand why I am gone so much, and then do what y'all do.
We will surely meet somewhere. When we do we will take my limo with the roofer signs on the door, and go for food & drinks.
Have a good weekend, it is beautiful here
BLT
Reply author: Tom Toll
Replied on: 10/17/2003 16:46:18
Message:
Cat, yes CADO is an organization of fellow adjusters. Look at the convention. Not enough interest to even have one next year. If we cannot organize, then we can set up a Society of Professional Property Adjusters and have separate state memberships, just like state adjuster organizations. I have been a member of The International Society of Air Saftey Investigators for many years. It is a very professional organization with stringent requirements. All the Aviation companies know that if they retain an ISASI member, they have the best available. It took me years to get into that organization, but was well worth the effort. That is the type of organization I would like to see and I feel one that would be beneficial to all concerned. One that the companies know that when they see that credential, they can expect Professionalism, Character, and Integrity.
Reply author: khromas
Replied on: 10/17/2003 17:47:25
Message:
I officially declare a 'cease-fire' in the negative direction this forum topic has generated.
It does no one any good to trade insults or accusations of incompetance and degrades the spirit of professionalism we all (SHOULD) try to ascribe to.
The principle of free exchange of ideas and speech is that each and every person has a right to their own opinion and I will defend to the death that person's right to disagree.
(Paraphrased from a well known document!)
Tom - I look forward to sitting down with you and Janice on Sunday and discussing positive moves we can make in establishing a plan for developing standards of professionalism and organization, hopefully here through CADO. I think the scope of the associations should not be limited to just property adjusters but those that cover all the spectrums - casualty, auto, medical, etc. There may be the need for seperate sub-divisions for the various specialties but the major carriers are looking at the broad picture.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/17/2003 19:11:36
Message:
TT, I see what you want to do. Its sounds like a good idea. It will take some doing. I would suggest something envites the interest of staff and independents alike. The more the merry'r! Good luck!
Kevin, peace it is. BLT offered me a ride in his limo. I have to raise the white flag as well. I might still run him down if I see him on the street, but for now, all is well.
BLT, promise me if you become a staff adjuster, that you won't pay for tile roofs with thermal cracks.
CD
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/18/2003 09:17:42
Message:
Once again the read the first post, about thermal cracks in tiles. I will only pay for what my employer deems is covered. I ride for the brand.
Reply author: Noble R. Nash
Replied on: 10/18/2003 22:22:24
Message:
give me a ballpin hammer just after hail,is like my ring at stateded value just before tax time.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/18/2003 23:23:33
Message:
? I'm confused, Noble, have you broken into Ghostbuster's firewater again?
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/19/2003 00:34:52
Message:
Test
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/19/2003 01:01:23
Message:
Well, Todd, it seems you took the brunt of the flaming. For that I extend my apologies for my former brethren in the claims industry.
1. SF's expansion theory is Bogus 2. Haag's directional hail theory is Bogus and so is their new higher number of hits threshold 3. Granule loss IS a product of normal wear and ONLY a manufacturer's "Rub Test" will determine if it is premature or will cause diminished value or a shortened lifespan. 4. Kile still can't explain why an "off square" contains fewer shingles than an "on square" and prove it mathematically. 5. There are 'roofer bullies' and 'adjuster bullies'. You'll find more adjuster bullies here and more roofer bullies at the Roofing site. 6. Granules in the gutter prove ONLY that there are granules in the gutter. 7. "Structural Integrity" or "intended purpose" of a shingle is a 'catch phrase' used by engineers and other so-called experts who are asked to back up bogus theories to deny certain claims. 8. When a shingle is hit by hail, breaking the mat is not the only way it can be damaged - there can be separation of the coating from the mat with no destruction of the mat and THAT, all you experts who don't know any better, you can take to the bank. UV degradation is another source of damage when no mat damage occurs. 9. As far as not owing to match, that language appears NOWHERE in any state's homeowners policy. 10. As far as have the right to choose a contractor, the homeowner is allowed to do that in some states such as the one you are in, Todd. He may also do so WITHOUT having to pay the difference AS LONG as the chosen contractor's price is FAIR (IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LOWEST OR MATCH ANY INSURANCE GENERATED AVERAGE PRICE SURVEY).
I have 30 or 40 more points that can be used to prop up one side or the other but my 11th is to ask why this thread was hijacked to try to begin ANOTHER price and fee fixing thread - it seems that the adjusters are doing the very thing to the carriers they have accused poor Todd and other representatives of that obviously sub-human species of doing to them - demanding a living wage.
Glad I do neither adjusting or construction now and only consult on class action suits these days. The one that's coming will be a "doozie" and affect MILLIONS of previously settled roof claims.
Look for it in a theater near YOU!
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/19/2003 08:44:31
Message:
Nice to have you back in the clubhouse, Lon. Did you bring a box of doughnuts for us all to share?
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/19/2003 08:58:26
Message:
Lon, where in the policy does it state that the insurance company does owe to match? Just curious.
And by the way, our per square price for removal includes starters and felt and any overlap and nails and bird doo and anything else up there. I'm right, you're still wrong. You just keep thinking that the engineers are wrong. What exactly are your academic credentials? Do you have any degrees at all?
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/19/2003 08:58:31
Message:
Thank you Mr. Sterling for sharing your opinion. We will file it next to the rest.
Class action lawsuits are the result of attorneys and so-called experts looking for grey areas of policy coverages and exploiting them. Do you think mold just appeared in the last five years? No, just the idea of how to make a buck off it.
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/19/2003 10:00:24
Message:
Lonnie, step back from the tar pot for a moment.
I left a map to a plate of cookies for you in a new thread in the General Forum - "Class Action - Roofs - Closed Claims??"
I hope you enjoy the cookies, but will share in exchange, by responding to the question found there.
Reply author: william s cook
Replied on: 10/19/2003 10:44:51
Message:
My experience regarding engineers is, that in many instances their training discipline does not make them imminently qualified to opine on any subject or project that the boss assigns to them. Many of them will not accept a project from a plaintiff attorney or a public adjuster for fear of alienating their cash cow (insurers). Many insurer-retained engineers and adjusters are outcome oriented and could not stand toe to toe with Mr. Sterling and the experience, expertise and knowledge that he appears to have in the arena of roofing. I don’t think relying on an obscure or obviated report serves the interest of fairness on either side of the pay window. Insurers should never pay more than they are contractually or statutorily obligated to pay, nor should they pay any less because of ignorance or incompetence or heroic gestures associated with one of the participants in the resolution of the claim.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/19/2003 15:20:03
Message:
First it is nice to hear the calm voice in the wilderness of the esteemed Mr. Cook.
Second, I'm so astonished that none of you have solved the world's problems or even those of the insurance/roofing/construction industry in my absence! The carrier's are still kicking your fee cat and you can only kick some roofer's price cat since that's the pecking order you've chosen to observe here.
Ghost, thanks for the attempt to be civil. I like only the glazed Krispy Kreme's - the other ones leak into the tar pot and just KILL the viscosity index.
Catdaddy said: "Class action lawsuits are the result of attorneys and so-called experts looking for grey areas of policy coverages and exploiting them. Do you think mold just appeared in the last five years? No, just the idea of how to make a buck off it."
Kinda reminds me of the "sweep flood and regravel" listed nowhere in any recognized roofing specification manual and the "gross on and net off" tear off theories - those are simply ways for carriers to exploit policyholders and make a buck off it.
Kile said: "Lon, where in the policy does it state that the insurance company does owe to match? Just curious."
Kile, that's located just above the part where it says you DON'T owe to match. I know it's tough to find, but you really have to be looking for it.
Kile said: "And by the way, our per square price for removal includes starters and felt and any overlap and nails and bird doo and anything else up there. I'm right, you're still wrong."
Kile, you've never been able to mathematically say for certain that your debris removal squares are the same size as your installed squares and unless you REALLY count the shingles there, you'll continue to spout what you've been trained to say. Get an armored car or I guess in Louisiana they use wheelbarrows to carry money, and come bet me those squares coincide dimensionally with the volume of squares that are actually on the roof. Just saying they do over and over to yourself may help you put the truth toward the back of your mind but it still fails to prove your theory mathematically. Sorry. There is NO ONE here willing to prove those squares are the truly squares. When they "survey" for pricing, they don't ask you to figure a different sized square from a volume standpoint. Persons responding to surveys assume a square is a square but your industry is perfectly willing to use that sham to "exploit" contractors and policyholders - a charge which seemed to strike such indignation in Catdaddy's admonition of claimants, attorneys and contractors.
Kile said: "You just keep thinking that the engineers are wrong. What exactly are your academic credentials? Do you have any degrees at all?"
Man, Kile, that is so abusive notwithstanding the fact that your I.Q. would probably divide into mine at least twice. Why don't you show me YOUR Mensa card? With the exception of very few here, the writing skills found on this board show most couldn't make higher than a "C" in high school grammar and composition. Kile, you DO seem to be one of the more accomplished writers here but far from a Ghostbuster or me.
And to answer your engineering question. I laughed my butt off at the people who supposedly hold the "Holy Grail of Engineering Expertise" for the Insurance Industry. I've got copies of letters where USAA completely "dissed" them and vowed never to use them. Even said they were dissatisfied with their work after Hugo in a certain East Coast state. However, they were continuing to use the firm on a daily basis in Texas at the same time. Wonder if it was because those engineers were operating in that state without a valid Engineering license at the time? Hmmmm.....
Besides that, I've been through those C.E. classes and have seen some of the bogus theories get smashed to smithereens by REAL roof consultants.
We all know carriers use consultants and engineers because they will say what they're expected to say in support of denying a claim on a regular basis.
Innstead of being nice to Todd and explaining granule loss in a nice way, a lot of you jumped on him. And to the "expert" who gave the best non-professional theory on granule loss, it sounded pretty good and even had points that were true.
However the CHIEF reason there is granule loss of a general nature is NOT pushing in the granules with small hail. It is, however, because granules are made of uneven ceramic shapes and when they are literally dropped onto a moving sheet covered with heated asphalt coating, they do not imbed uniformly. Some granules actually wedge between two granules that ARE imbedded into the coating. Those are often called "rider" granules since they are only along for the ride. They become the first victims and are lost in various phases during all the processes which follow the granule drop all the way from packaging, installation, scuffing and the most gentle of weather conditions.
As a great man once said, "You can always tell an Adjuster. You just can't tell him much. Or was that Jim Flynt on roofers? Well that is certainly the lumber crayon and digital camera calling the tar pot and modified bitumen "black".
Buena suerte on your attempts to pass roofers on the food chain, however, you should be nice to the Todds you meet along the way.
And... I'm ready to measure tear off ANY time, as long as the wager is large enough to be interesting and you guys decide to quit dodging the question with insults and scholastic apptitude inquiries.
Best wishes,
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/19/2003 15:41:24
Message:
Ok, Lon, I think I have boiled it all down. This will be my last post on the tear-off question.
I am looking at an estimate from a roofer right now. He is charging $25 a square for tear off and i'm paying $28.90 in my estimate. MMMM. I wonder why there is a difference? If you figure a 20 square roof (without waste) he is charging $500 to tear it off. I'm paying $578. If you use a 10% waste factor he will charge $550. MMMMMMM. I'm still higher. Who is getting the better end of the deal here? You are arguing squares and I am arguing dollars.
If I say the roof has 2 squares and I'm going to pay a total $5000 to replace it and the roofer says it is 40 squares and is charging $4900 to do the job. Do I still owe for an additional 38 squares? I think not. An insurance claim boils down to dollars and cents. If the price is the same why would you argue about scope?
I had this same exact discussion with an insured yesterday. He said the roofer told him he needed 2 more squares than we had figured and wanted an additional $250 to do the work. After discussing the claim with this gentleman for a few minutes I finally got down to brass tacks. I said, what did you pay him? The insured told me that the roofer had agreed to do it for whatever the insurance check was for (meaning minus the deductible). This insured had a $500 deductible and had paid the roofer the amount of our payment and now the roofer wants an additional $250 for the 2 squares he says we shorted him. It took me 20 minutes to explain to this man that we don't owe him any more money. If anything he owed the carrier money. He was talking squares, I was talking dollars.
The more I think about it the crazier this argument gets. If we are talking about a 20 square roof and I pay on actual squares for tear off and you are charging for tear off with waste that means we are arguing over $40-$50. On a roof that we have paid $2500-$3000 I'm not going to argue over $50. If that is what it takes to close the file I'm going to whip out my check book and write a company check for $50. Claim closed, now I can move on to the other 10 reopens I have to handle.
Thanks for the fun, but I will consider this argument over. I'll even let you say you won if you want. If my file is closed now I'm happy.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/19/2003 16:20:20
Message:
Lon, I am not sure what it is you actually do, but you dont charge by the word do you?
You strike me as a person who likes the sound of his own voice. Am I wrong? Its hard for me to tell, having such a insignificant IQ compared to yours. I can see why there were probably no tears when you left before. Care to try for 2 outa 3?
CD
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/19/2003 16:22:57
Message:
Catdaddy: Shooting the messenger has always been a favorite sport of the uninformed. And... If you're intimidated by post length, yours COULD be 30% longer if you used punctuation.
Kile: We're not arguing. You just admitted you are wrong but that somehow your figure aligns with the roofer's price. Go check an Allstate claim and try their Net/Net on for size.
This is FACT: Insurers use the tear off cheat, however slight, to cheat the claim. Done millions of times, it is the same as paying $2 per pic one year and $1.50 per pic the next year. It simply DOESN'T even out.
While you may attract a cheaper roofer/adjuster, the bottom line PER CLAIM is still going South every year for both adjusters and roofers.
15 years ago, a cedar shingle roof was figured by the Big Five, as Catdaddy likes to call them, by figuring the same square on and off. How did the math change? Adjuster fees were higher then, too. Like it or not, we ALL know the real reason you figure tearoffs like you do instead of correctly.
In another post, you said things change. Yes they do. When they begin checking roofs with High Definition satellite imagry in 5, 10, 15 more years, will you trade your pickup in for a rocket and a satellite to stay competitive? No, you'll probably retire and consult like I do now.
My point to all of you is that I've discovered a whole niche of people here on this board whose only joy in life seems to be taking solace, however misplaced it may be, in being better than some roofer.
Are fee-cutting adjusters the only HONEST adjusters out there? That is your barometer for roofers - why isn't it your barometer for adjusters?
Hey, it's Sunday! Wal-Mart is OPEN! You guys should be shopping!
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/19/2003 16:39:29
Message:
As far fetched as it seems ( I seriously doubt that satelites will be used to inspect roofs in our lifetime)even if it comes to that, someone needs to look at the photos and interpret coverages. How are your satelites going to scope interior leaks? How will they find all of the damaged garden gnomes and gazing balls that have been damaged and are now under the carport, out of satelite view? What about houses who are cover by tree canopy?
Believe it or not, we are the face of the insurance carrier. I don't care how technologically savy our insureds become, they still want to see a friendly face at the door with a firm handshake. I don't think that will ever go away. As much as we are an instrument to implement the terms of an insurance policy, we are also an insurance companies best advertisement. How many times have you adjusters gone out to a claim and found damage the insured never even considered, like window wraps or dented shutters or all kinds of other little things that Joe Homeowner just doesn't think about. Those little things really do mean alot to the goodwill of the company. Do you really think that an insured will accept a phone call saying "Well, we looked at your roof with our satellite and there is no damage, thanks for filing a claim and please call on us for your future insurance needs."
I don't see that day coming anytime soon.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/19/2003 16:43:38
Message:
Intimidated by someone who types so much and says so little. More like bored.
Who do you consult and in what area is your expertise?
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/19/2003 17:53:41
Message:
Catdaddy,
You wouldn't understand.
Just like Kile thinks he's indispensible - he'll love the pay for sitting there looking at HD roof photos. Roofers have more job security than that. At least 75% of the roof claims in most hailstorms have no interior damages. So they don't need an interior visit.
Avoiding the questions seems like where I came in last time, Kile. Wanna bet on the tear off math? Anybody? Agreed scope? If the contractor doesn't agree then you can't defend the net tear off. All of your, "it works out" arguments die when proof is required that the size is correct.
Bet me.
Just checked in to see who you mental giants were were ganging up on this time. Still no substance and no proof. Take heart, Todd. They can only feel better about themselves by hammering you - you saw how most of their hail damage and granule loss and fractured mat theories were destroyed in a heartbeat.
I can't wait to tesify against one of them that pulls out that baseball sized hail diagram showing it blowing at a 30 degree angle! The jury will think their at the Comedy Club!
Does anybody out there realize a well-struck golf ball is affected about 1% in distance for each mph of head-on wind? That means a shot that would carry 150 yards on a calm day might go only 135 yards into a 15 mph wind.
With that untested, unproven directional hail theory being used to buy partial roofs today, that means Nolan Ryan woulda hit the dugout with his fastball anytime the winds from left or right field got over 20 mph or so. Hear that Nolan? With the wind behind you, there woulda been a hole all the way through the catcher's mitt.
Read an article the other day that called the directional hail theory "junk science". Met a guy who has video of large hail coming down and crossing paths with other stones but NEVER at more than a 6 degree angle even though the winds were gustinmg up to 40 mph.
Kinda like that story about catching some dude making marks on a comp roof with a number two lead pencil by examining the roof with a microscope. Published it in Claims Magazine they did. With you guys believing in Fairy Tales like that, is there any wonder I laugh when I come in here?
You all should get out more!
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/19/2003 18:13:46
Message:
Well, Lon, I have already pointed out that the price that I am using for tear off includes the waste. If you can't understand that then your IQ can't be nearly as high as you claim it is.
Now, as to your directional hail diatribe, are you telling us you have never gotten on a roof and found hail damage on one slope and no damage on another slope? I know you are a roofer but have you ever looked at siding that is damaged by hail? It is almost always damaged on one or two sides but rarely on the opposite two sides.
Is it your contention that it is impossible for wind driven hail to impact a steep roof at a different angle and therefore impart different forces on slopes facing in different directions?
Please, enlighten us all with your amazing IQ. Oh, if I can find my MENSA card I will scan a copy and post it here. It's been several years since I got it and I seem to have misplaced it.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/19/2003 19:36:35
Message:
Lon, I wouldn't understand? Are you an astronaut?
Well, I am sorry you don't have the intelligence to explain it to me. Maybe we can figure it out together. Answer these questions, if you can, and maybe it will come to you.
1. Does your office building have golden arches on the front?
2. Do you stand on the back of a truck and empty big cans into the rear when it stops?
3. Do you find yourself in rooms with men that seem REAL friendly?
See if that jogs that big memory. If it doesn't, don't worry. We'll come up with something.
CD
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/19/2003 20:11:22
Message:
Lon, there are aspects of your posts I either agree with or would like to see for myself. But the tone of your writing comes across as combative and abrasive, and I do not think you are aware of it's impact. I believe this is what is generating the heat in your direction.
May I please ask that the heat be turned down and a current of civility return? Otherwise, we're gonna have to hose down the campfire.
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/19/2003 20:28:53
Message:
Kile: "Well, Lon, I have already pointed out that the price that I am using for tear off includes the waste. If you can't understand that then your IQ can't be nearly as high as you claim it is."
Kile, you keep confusing the size of a square with pricing - unit pricing requires a price and a unit not some hybrid, nebulous "my price includes that" song. How come the pricing surveys don't ask for a price to tear off that includes the extra money you SAY you include?
Weak argument, Kile. Your square must change sizes because the unit price does NOT and the surveys (he he) that supposedly compile those prices don't relay that information or explain that it should include extra volume, either.
It would be so simple to bet on this but you're afraid to face up to the challenge.
Kile: "Now, as to your directional hail diatribe, are you telling us you have never gotten on a roof and found hail damage on one slope and no damage on another slope? I know you are a roofer but have you ever looked at siding that is damaged by hail? It is almost always damaged on one or two sides but rarely on the opposite two sides."
Kile, Kile. We are talking vertical surfaces with siding. The course materials you study do NOT make a differentiation about slope nor do they admit hail falls in a multi-directional manner. In fact, the study material says without reservation that there will be more damage on the windward slope than the leeward slope.
I'm sorry but the house has to be sitting at a precise angle, the winds have to be sustained without swirling, the hail must fall at the precise angle of the roof's directional orientation and large hail simply does NOT do that consistently. We've all seen the smaller stuff blow sideways and we've all seen the smaller stuff rake two sides of an air conditioner's coils or the siding but gravity and downbursts are the two BIGGEST factors governing the attitude of large hail - not surface winds.
Kile: "Is it your contention that it is impossible for wind driven hail to impact a steep roof at a different angle and therefore impart different forces on slopes facing in different directions?"
The previous paragraph answers most of the above questions but large hail impacts even OPPOSING slopes with direct hits because the major direction is down and the angle seldom exceeds 10 degrees. Even with 10 degree angles (lots of video to back up even smaller angles of incidence with large hail), the roof receives a number of direct hits on ALL slopes. You'd have a better chance of convincing someone of the directional BS if the hail were golf ball sized or smaller.
Kile: "Please, enlighten us all with your amazing IQ. Oh, if I can find my MENSA card I will scan a copy and post it here. It's been several years since I got it and I seem to have misplaced it."
Jealous are we?
As for replying to Catdaddy, I think Ghostbuster, who warned me about being civil, should read Catdaddy's post that actually appears above his warning to ME and make that reply in my behalf. Maybe there is still a double standard for posters here. I guess we'll see.
If so, goodbye Todd. I tried.
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/19/2003 21:02:57
Message:
It's hard to believe this thread has gone so far... below is my original post. If no one has any more comments to make regarding it, I respectuflly request you take your discussions elsewhere as they do not pertain to the topic as stated.
********************************************
Let's talk about hail damage... I have been pondering recently whether or not it is actually true that the hail damage will be visible in 6 months if it is not visible during my current inspection.
I have seen these idea passed around recently and want to have further discussion and input.
Now, as a young adjuster, I went out on a re-i request 3-4 months after my initial denial of hail damage and did find hail damage to warrant repairs to the roof. Was this because I was not thorough enough at the initial inspection? Or was it simply that the damage could not be found?
I have even used this idea as a way to pacify homeowners if they weren't happy with my denial, actually believing what I was telling them (because of the above scenario).
I was particularly disturbed the other day when a roofer met me at a loss and after we scoured the roof the best we could, we found NO hail damage except to some box vents. He had called the claim in for the homeowner claiming hail damage to the roof. After I told him I wasn't buying it, he flippantly said, "wait 6 months, the next adjuster will." That upset me for so many reasons which I know you felt in a visceral way as you read his comment to me.
I guess what I really want to know is, if I look hard enough the first time, can I find that same damage that will possibly show up 6 months later? If I can, how much harder are we talking? An extra 5 minutes per test square? And extra 30 minutes?
I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions or thoughts anyone has on this, from any side of the proverbial fence.
Just do me one favor... let's not get all partisian or flaming here. I like my topics to stay friendly. :-)
Jennifer
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/19/2003 21:09:20
Message:
Now see Lon, all that blab and we still don't know what you do besides write long posts and put down poor Kyle. Ok. Look down and to the left. Is your name on your shirt? If it is, look to the right. Who you work for should be on that side. What does it say? If we can get the name, we can call them tomorrow and ask them what you do since you don't seem to be able to explain it to us.
For the record, some of your points are interesting but you do deliver them in a very condescending tone. You go on and on, spitting out all these unsubstantiated ideas that could be coming off gum wrappers, all the while telling us we are all stupid. If you are the way you seem, I'm sorry. Get help and hit the road. If you are not, tone it down and stay a while.
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/19/2003 21:31:24
Message:
Lon, obviously you are incapable of understanding logic. I've already explained to you that you are comparing apples and oranges.
Please, someone, tell me if I am being less than clear. Does anyone else understand what I am saying because poor Lon here has no clue and seems to be completely incapable of understanding plain english.
I would be willing to bet that Lon wanted to be a lawyer (he seems to have the adequate slimeyness for the profession) but has been frustrated in his efforts somehow.
Lon, you are not going to change reality. Hail does impact different slopes of a roof at different angles and it can damage one side of a roof without damaging the other. I've seen it. You can't tell me that it doesn't because I have seen it with my own eyes. I've seen a tornado tear the roof off of one house and leave a small shed in the back yard completely untouched. That is why when a good adjuster examines a roof he looks at every slope.
Are you naturally this hard headed or do you do some sort of excercises to achieve it?
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/20/2003 00:03:29
Message:
It's late and I'm about to head off to bed, but something just occurred to me. Lon seems to think that everyone else is stupid. Engineers don't know what they are talking about, adjusters don't know what they are doing, he thinks I'm dumb, he knows that his IQ is tremendously superior to everyone else's and he just loves to tell all of us this. I think I have figured out the problem. Lon has a serious inferiority complex and he feels the need to let all of us know how remarkably superior he is to all of us. If he is so damn smart and knows the answers to everything, why is he wasting his time preaching to us stupid adjusters? Surely his time could be much better spent putting his immense knowledge and superior intellect to use on money making endeavors.
I hope that everyone will join me in asking Lon to please, spare himself the mental anguish of having to deal with all of us bone heads and kindly leave the clubhouse and spread his gospel to the world and spare us the time of having to read his obviously infallible logic. It's a big world out there, Lon, enjoy it. You'll be missed. (sarcasm intended).
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/20/2003 06:33:52
Message:
I'm just a poor ol' roofer, taking my lmo to McDonalds. Where I will study my daytimer to see which roofs need to be called for 90 day re-inspect.
I still think we are on track, with the original post. Its all about time and damage. With a few diversions along the way. I am just glad some of the heat, has been taken off me.
Our little outfit does not estimate waste into demolition, only to application.
I also think I am the best writer.
BLT
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/20/2003 07:26:49
Message:
Brooks, I think you write well also. And you will be just that much better at it when you get to the 5th grade!
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/20/2003 08:40:22
Message:
Brooks, be careful, if you cozy up to us too much Lon will accuse you of crossing over to the dark side. I'm beginning to think more and more that you may be one of the good roofers.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/20/2003 09:17:40
Message:
Kile:
I'm not cozying up, just glad someone else is tkaing some heat.
Cat, I don't know why my profile says I'm 13. I was already in the 6th grade by then though.
BLT
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/20/2003 12:29:46
Message:
I think Lon is Brooks' hero. A roofer with a thesaurus!
What about it Brooksie?
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/20/2003 14:26:51
Message:
Kile,
Here's the deal: Your inclusion of a factor to cover the extra material by adding it to pricing is simply a line you've been taught to repeat.
I'm willing to PROVE my math on a job site. Are you willing to PROVE your point by showing me actual past documented surveys that make it clear to the respondent that the tear off square price should include extra areas of shingles?
That is the basic question - not whether you can teach some fire restoration contractor or sheetrocker to "do the job" (not always a REAL roof job) for an agreed price. You DO write down a number of off squares and therein lies the lie.
You know those squares don't represent the true number of removed squares. It is even simple enough for YOU to understand. You fill out the worksheet using an incorrect number of squares for removal EVERY SINGLE TIME!
You have consistently mixed the apples and oranges to serve your own purpose. Most, not all, adjusters and roofers understand that unit pricing is made up of two things: units and prices.
When you figure "On" you figure a certain number of squares and those squares NEVER vary in size or volume on a per square basis after the unit is selected, yet when you figure off, they do. I can prove it and you can't.
It's really very, very simple.
I take it by your prior sidestepping non-answer that the reason your are avoiding betting me on the outcome is because you are AFRAID of the outcome proving you wrong. We don't have to make the winnings illegal - the loser could just agree to roof a poor person's house as a charitable contribution.
I'm sure you could even get a few of these $100K-$170K per year guys to chip in to help cover your losses in case the volume exceeded the net figure you came up with.
After all, what does it cost to roof a poor person's house? $1500 - $2500?
Surely the 15 or 20 'Lon bashers' here would love nothing better than to prove once andd for all that my theory is way off base.
If you include extra squares to be removed on the tear off only without quantifying them, then the unit size changes no matter what you say.
The feeble excuse of building it into the price is lame and you know it.
I expect your usual off topic Lon bashing reply and I'm sure you won't disappointment me by changing your style and accepting a perfectly reasonble way to settle the issue.
By the way, go back and look the FIG letter posted a year ago which was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the Texas Department of Insurance.
I've also got worksheets PROVING "on" squares were the same as "off" squares with cedar shingle roofs and they've now been changed to "net off" squares. FIG is not the only set of worksheets I have and they were voluntarily given by the consumers for the purpose of showing the change.
Bet you're not even going to be able to muster enough financial support from all the rich guys here to make the bet referred to. My bet is that the bashing will continue to include the incessant innuendos concerning my ancestry and sexual orientation (which seem to be okay with the admin/mods of this board if you are Catdaddy) and that I'll continue to get warnings or an outright ban from Ghostbuster who told ME to be civil and non-abrasive directly underneath a much more abusive Catdaddy post.
Last year, if you'll remember, Jim Flynt could only muster objections consisting of "How long have you been a roofer, Mr. Sterling" and theories about alien intervention leading to supernatural typos in the posted FIG letter. He was then successfully able to convince moderators to remove his drivel from the entire thread.
This hasn't changed since I left. The board mentality is a cyber "Planet of Apes" and since Jim's (Cornelius in the movie) removal, several have been jockeying for the position.
Kile, by continuing to ignore direct questions and by failing to prove your points in the face of someone else who is willing to do so to support his allegations, you are quickly becoming the leading candidate to be the "Keeper of the Ancient Scrolls" - Cornelius II.
Heresy?
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/20/2003 17:03:50
Message:
Lon, when applying a new roof, if you cut shingles and pieces fall to the ground and stay there, how can you be removing the same number of squares, pounds of shingles, etc, that you purchased or are in your calculations that include waste???????? Part of that figure is in the trash!
You said it was very simple. The answer seems so to me.
And this with no insults I might add.
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/20/2003 17:13:30
Message:
Lon, When we pay to remove shingles we pay for the removal of shingles in a specific area. That area is figured in squares. That square may include some overlap of material. We are not paying for the material, we are only paying for the labor to remove it in that area.
When we pay to put a roof on we put down how many squares you must purchase to cover the actual area that is on the roof. This is the last time I will address this issue. I am right and you are simply wrong. There is no need for mathematical calculations because as I said before, we are discussing apples and oranges. I already proved to you with a real life example when I showed you the roofer was charging 25 off and I was paying 28.90 off.
Besides all of that, Brooks, a roofer, has admitted that he doesn't figure waste into tear off. So apparently it works for him too.
Next.
Reply author: fivedaily
Replied on: 10/20/2003 17:46:10
Message:
I am glad to see we are kind of back on the topic of roofs and not bashing...
Jennifer
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/20/2003 18:05:31
Message:
This is deja-vu all over again. Lon, I am trying my best to winnow thru the bully-boy tone here and put forward your contention.
Here we go...a simple 2x5x10 gable roof. Regular ol' 3 tab.
There is 100sq feet of roof area. There is also 10' of ridge and 40' of starter. (That's 10' on each base and 10' on the two sides. According to insurance practices, we figure tear of to be...100sq feet, right? This is the actual area of roofing we measured.
I believe what Lon is saying is, 'What about the starters and ridge?' Does our Lon want to be paid extra for the tear off of the starters and ridge? Sure sounds like it. Technically, is it there? Should it be paid for also? If it is there, why do we not pay for it? What is the history as to why it is not paid for? Is there some space alien/carrier bean counter honcho concocting a vast conspiracy? To say that it all comes off at the same time is sometimes mentioned, is that a valid contention? Or, is there additional labor to remove it as well as final prep on the bare roof? And, what about the old felt? Is this another item that can be dragged into the discussion?
Ya see, Lon, there is no acrimony in this post as is in yours. We do not wish to arbitrarily cross swords unless someone comes in trying to bully us here in the clubhouse. You are welcome here if you can leave the foul attitude out in the yard. Thank you.
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/20/2003 21:50:55
Message:
This is more like it, fellas!
I appreciate the dialogue rather than the references to my chosen carrer of flipping burgers and the pre-mature unveiling of my romantic leanings!
Houston, we have a copy!
First, well said to the inimitable Ghost who no doubt has told us baddies all privately to behave.
Next Kile, believe me when I say I see your point and if I had started my business in a state where roofing labor had been hourly for residential work, I would have no problem with simply figuring "bottom line".
However, as we all know. That is not the way it is in the land of OU victims.
The picture you refer to is quite clear and understandable but lacks some thought given to logical progression. I'll try to explain in a kinder and gentler way.
Your scenario of the tear off relates to a "surface area" only. Granted, the shingles you are questioning me about lie right underneath the shingles I'm already tearing off and add, AS YOU SAY, no more square footage of shingles from a surface measurement standpoint.
We all agree so far that (pick a number) 4000 square feet is all the deck covers. We all agree so far that the surface area measurement of shingles does not exceed 4000 feet.
However, here comes the difference - and let's don't get ahead of ourselves here - we all already agree that some of that surface area has a few extra shingles underneath the surface area shingles.
Many people who have only watched roofing go on or being torn of have a simplistic view of its ease or difficulty as the case may be. However, we all agree that tearing off a few extra shingles is "some" extra work - granted there will be varying opinions on just how much extra. I'll also say right here that no two houses are the same in that regard. I'll explain later.
So we're all in agreement that there are actually more shingles on the roof than just those that cover the surface - we just haven't quantified that amount yet nor have we explored the difficulty factor in removing and disposing of them. I think we can all agree that so far, we're all close to "cool" and that concept. I'm sure even Kile, Catdaddy and Ghost are "on board" with this concept to some degree.
Now let's enter the variable that makes it apparent that the equation you are using is flawed.
Let's pretend that you discover a second roof has been "overlayed" on top of the first one. We can all agree that there would be a second layer tear off involved.
For the time being, we'll leave out the possibility that the dirty, filthy, thieving insured may have absconded with the prior claim's tear off money and bought his wife a cubic zirconium with the ill-gotten gains or that worse, the poor needy, blind insured was taken advantage of by a band of gypsy roofers who feigned a tear off and even pocketed extra dumpster money to make the insured think a real demolition was occurring.
Now, by finding that second layer and by virtue of a previous ruling by a former Sheriff of the Insurance Department in Texas, we know we are immediately obligated to remove BOTH layers of roofing. (We can allremember Big Red trying to "sell" the second layer tear off at $5 per qsquare by telling contractors, insureds and even adjusters that it was "the going rate". Of course we all know and knew then it wasn't but that's another stroy.
Pay close attention here because this is where the "Law of Large Numbers" has been lining the pockets of the carriers for years.
When does a second layer of shingles become a second roof rather than a few extra shingles? And who decides that in favor of the carrier EACH time?
Kile, said "I'm not arguing over $50 on a $3,000 roof." Well technically it's not an argument unless both sides have a chance of winning unless the argument is spousal. Kile's refusal to argue really means he won't pay - the not arguing part is to tell the roofer or policyholde that your decision is final - not just that you won't argue.
Digression is sometimes good but let's get back to the "Law of Large Numbers".
Catdaddy, I'm getting to your thoughts here, too.
Right now, on a 40 square hip roof you figure 4000 sq. feet = 40 square plus 15% "waste" (it is not actually all waste - in fact, less than 2%-2.5% is cut off and discarded onto the ground or into the trash receptacle).
That means 6 squares of EXTRA shingles is bought and mostly installed on that roof, or approximately 12.5% to 13% EXTRA is installed on that roof in the form of valley crossover materials, starter, hips, bleeder and ridges.
The thing all insurers like to use as a "catchall" phrase is WASTE which was originally referred to as cut waste and the original estimates figured ridge, valley, hips, bleeders and starters as additional to the 'cut waste'.
Now we have .13 times 40 squares actually being installed on that roof in addition to the 40 it took to cover the deck. (The math: .13 X 40 = 5.20 squares of installed roofing with about .8 of a square actually removed during the cutting to fit operation.)
If you're talking about 5.2 squares of dimensional 40 year (300 pounds per square) shingles, the weight is approximately 1,560 pounds of EXTRA shingles that must be un-nailed, scraped off, carried to a trash receptacle, hauled to a dump and unloaded - sometimes by hand.
Given the fact that another 1,560 pounds of roofing debris must torn off, be hand carried to the trash bin or trailer or dump truck on a 40 (46 squares with {I hate to even use the term since it's been bastardized} "WASTE"), how long and how much labor, fuel, equipment wear, hauling etc. would you have to "THROW IN" for there to be "no argument"?
If a Sears Die Hard battery weighs 40 pounds and has a carrying strap, it would take 39 trips to and fro over a sloped roof some 40 feet for an average distance just to put the refuse into the waiting truck alone. That's with the Sears carrying strap and not having to remove 80 or 90 nails in the 40 pound of shingles area. Plus, given the bulk of loose shingles, I doubt the average man could lift and manage to carry more than 20 pounds at a time so you might double the trips.
Now, the final factor: With roofs being equally divided between hips and gables, that fact would mean that approximately 11.75% on average of extra shingles would have to be torn off on every roof.
Again, the "Law of Large Numbers" is a useful tool in determining that the insurance industry is forcing or should we say "getting an agreed price" from contractors. That amounts to complete tear off and haul off every 10th house FREE!
My bottom line is to say that NONE of you have really made the time and material studies necessary to back your theory. I have and I've stated I'm willing to prove and have one side or the other donate the roof to a needy person other than Ghostbuster who also has to flip burger to make ends meet just as I do.
Besides the time and material studies, the math and the other provable flaws in your method, there is also the paper trail of the way it has spread from company to company and from roof type to roof type. I have clearly and carefully chronicled those changes in the collected worksheets from the past quarter century.
By the way, while I can't say for certain without checking old worksheet dates, I think GAB invented the net tear off as a sales advantage to sell their superior service (by virtue of a lower bottom line) to carriers.
Now that should answer the basic concepts of the theory to the satisfaction of most, especially if I add that phrases like "we shouldn't have to pay for what is already cut off" are now FULLY understood by each of us. You're not paying for that and are not being asked to do so. Your carriers are unjustly enriching themselves to the tune of 11+% of unpaid tear off on EVERY single roof. If they're taking it from us, I wouldn't have a problem with them adding it to you fee schedules since we don't see it, until the matter is resolved. It SURE doesn't belong to the carrier.
Final thought:
It is my opinion that certain letters sent to the state board of insurance in several states had a bearing on Allstate's decision to try to go to a net/net on/off figure. They are attempting to use a net on net off premise and say they have added o the price similar to the excuse Kile offered. However, when you mix price and units, you lose some of the accuracy needed to differentiate between hips and gables. And besides that, a very cursory examination of accumulated worksheets PROVES there is not correlating price change of the smae magnitude.
The sad thing is that there will eventually be a challenge to the method I wrote about above and also to the new Allstate method. With a decent explanation of the truthful measurements, they will lose.
Whether it will result in massive refunds or simply a cease and desist order, I don't know. But you can bet that with the thousands of roofs I've personally torn off free and with the continued reduction in roofing allowances (look at your own fees dwindle), I won't be sad.
And to those who think my only mission is to bash insurers and adjusters, it is far from the truth. As a court appointed umpire, I once awarded a lesser amount than had been previously offered BEFORE appraisal by the old Houston General when their appraiser and I agreed that the damages were not the result of a covered peril. I KNEW what caused them.
If it's right, it's right.
And to Jennifer, whose thread had somewhat been hijacked, my apologies. And my opinion? The damage is ALWAYS there but certain conditions make it easier to spot and sometimes, extra time spent on the roof can help and sometimes weather will magnify what it was almost impossible for the most experienced roof consultant to see. There have been a lot of ideas that have been put forward about ways to check for hail damage and most I agree are useful tools to help build a forensic case for determining the extent of damage or the lack thereof.
One day, after I get off from flipping burgers at the Golden Arch Diner and Roofing Emporium and after a few more touchy-feely sessions with my therapist, I will relate a few of those experiences on damage assessment.
This is as civil as I can be and I've NEVER been a good dancer but sing? I can flat do some singin"!
Regards,
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/20/2003 21:54:23
Message:
A roofer with a thesaurus? Whats that. Does that help you to read blue prints, or policies?
Jennifer still has a good question.
I still believe that damage shows up better, later.
I love a nice fast & quick story. Lon would be hard to defeat in the field, or courtroom. He has lots of facts. All of my observations have been field related. What I would like to know about, is the lawsuit. They always seem to favor attorneys, and would put carriers, manufactuers, and contractors in danger. Also it would probably not benefit building owners. Although if something comes of this, you know who to refer your policy holders to.
NO WASTE FACTOR IN TEAR OFF
also, lots of structure owners, don't declare damage right away.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/20/2003 22:09:50
Message:
Lon:
Your last post came in at the same time as mine. That is well said. How fast do you type?
Sometimes I think carriers try to wear you out, instead of paying proper claim.
Cat, dont be negative to garbage people, think of what they do for you. Why I have even given them a $100 to haul off repairs.
BLT
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/20/2003 22:10:59
Message:
Lon, first of all, I said, I wouldn't argue over $50 on a $2500-3000 roof. I then went on to say I'd take out the checkbook and write a check for $50. I have so many claims sitting on my desk where the roofer is trying to gouge the insured that I wish I could get them all to within $50.
Secondly, I demonstrated how the figure I was paying for tear off was more than was being charged because the overlap is included in the figure that I'm using. If I use actual area and the roofer uses the same on and off method it comes out essentially the same. So I have proved in my example that my method is more than sufficient to cover the tear off of ALL the shingles on the roof. Therefore I am right and you are wrong. Get over it, you are wrong, please be man enough to admit it.
Thirdly, you said to Jennifer "the damage is always there". Does this mean that every claim we get definitely has damage and there is no need for us to look for it because an insured or a roofer would never tell an insurance company that there is damage when in fact there is not? I have another stack of files sitting on my desk that an adjuster looked at, couldn't find damage, then a roofer looked at said there was damage, then the roofer and I looked at it together and guess what? No damage.
I live this everyday, 7 days a week. I know for a fact that not every roof has hail damage. I see both kinds everyday, damaged and undamaged. So to correct you, the damage isn't ALWAYS there.
Now, let's look at it from your perspective again. Why don't we figure to tear out the nails too, why not the felt seperately too? Why not add in a little for every vent and pipe flashing? Do you want to know why? BECAUSE IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE I'M PAYING. When will you get this point through your thick skull?
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/20/2003 22:33:57
Message:
Okay, Kile has pointed out that we are required to rely on prices provided by the carriers, who rely on the estimating software companies who rely on surveys they have requested from area contractors who rely on the trainee estimator who is on his first day on the job given this non-paying task to do to keep him out of trouble. Does the trainee know what he is doing? Hey, it's his first day on the job! If he screws up on this task, who cares? Tomorrow he'll start on some real work that matters.
So, where were we? Oh yeah, who out there disagrees about the ridge row and starters being there? Catdaddy, have the Big Red pricing specialists ever researched this question for you?
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/20/2003 23:54:13
Message:
Ghost, with all due respect and without incriminating yourself, how many line items are you told to skip on the estimating software because the CARRIER tells you they are "included" in the roofing price?
They NEVER prove to anyone that these line items are included and software companies continue to build software programs that can figure a building properly. The trouble lies in the carriers' wish to "include" as many items as they can get awaty with and then to hire people to estimate who have less understanding of construction than they do.
Here's a brain teaser. Especially for Todd who does commercial and any adjuster who thinks he knows the commercial market.
I did a study on new construction projects let by the Texas Highway Department and by several Independent School Districts.
For a 3 or 4 ply built up roof including metal work and insulation, the LOW WINNING bids were awarded at $5.85-$6.75 per foot or $585 - $675 per square WITHOUT access or tearoff hinderance associated with existing buildings that have yards and lanscaping.
Any of you Texas adjusters see ANY prices like that before tear off on ANY of your pricing schedules? I know you don't.
Instead commercial jobs are awarded to sub-contract "labor broker" companies who may have no workers comp insurance or may even lack general liability.
Kile, before you start talking too much about gouging, understand that these contracts are highly sought after by 10 or more bidders who may bid close to their real costs when work is slow. What does that tell you about the insurance indutry attracting fly-by-nights and adjusters who can't tell the difference in the work product?
Anybody have any Big Red price lists that go over $4 per foot?
I didn't think so.
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/21/2003 07:56:51
Message:
Lon, ease back a bit more. This is the direction we are going, to determine just how is the tear off cost computed and it's extant.
Okay, kids...let's do some research into the tear off of roofing. On your mark, get set...ANALYZE!
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/21/2003 08:49:57
Message:
I agree the ridge and starter rows are there. Lon, I would just suggest a wider snow shovel for the poor illegal immigrant that you are paying less than minimum wage to tear if off.
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/21/2003 11:30:59
Message:
Now, Now, Catdaddy. I know we don't pay extra for the ridge and starters, the question is why? What we are after is the research into the rationale of the tear off. The top layer is figured and so is the second layer, why are the ridge and starter ignored? This can resolve for once and forever this basic question. I believe a pricing specialist could help, so could our pals at the software estimating firms like the Big X, or DDS, or Powerclaim, or Simsol. How about the outfits like Craftsman Publishing that work up these scope items and attendant prices that we rely on?
Isn't there a breakdown in Xactimate and DDS that tries to explain how costs are derived? How about it, guys, you have sold your software, here's where you can back it up. If we can resolve it here, we can avoid explaining it to a jury.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/21/2003 12:30:42
Message:
Tear off is based on labor. Sometimes dumpster fees are included in price; sometimes you have to add them, based on how roofing is priced in that area. The ridges and the starters come off with rest and any extra effort involved would be hard to measure. I am sure the Almighty Lon could come up with something while he's sitting on his think tank. Another gumwrapper fact for sure. We're are talking real world here.
There are instances where ridge shingles are added to the amount of shingles being replace, but not very often when you are doing a whole roof. Mostly doing slopes. Never say never though.
These attempts to add fluff to estimates, finding a way to start a class action, get over on the big insurance companies will not benefit anyone in the long run. Some of you are insured by these companies and when you try to stick it to them on the front, it's gonna get you in the rear. People like Lon are whats ruining this industry for all of us. Why do you think carriers can't pay vendors more, and vendors can't pay adjusters more? Cause people like Lon keep coming up with ways to try to make a quick buck. Anyone out there work mold in Houston? Ya had this big commitment for long term money and then got it yanked out from under you. Why? Well, when a company is losing 300 million a quarter, ya gotta cut back somewhere. Ya still think its gonna be staffers? Wrong again! Bye, go home.
Have a nice day!
CD
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/21/2003 14:23:14
Message:
While this thread has had some interesting moments after the initial question was dealt with, carnival hucksters that come along into our industry do little but further gray the water.
The P&C insurance industry has been deteriorating for the past several years, and there is no single factor behind the decline. The two major contributors to the decline are rising claim costs and declining return on investments. Both of these issues compounded are putting upward pressure on premiums. Short term profits in the previous quarter are not a trend towards recovery, and the year will come to an end with another overall industry net loss.
While the manner in which PoppaCat tells it, may be humorous, the message he sends is very real.
While there is still evidence that the independent contractor can still benefit from a labor void situation during storm events, and other situations to some degree; we are still a discretionary commodity with no binding ties to the ultimate purchaser of our services - the carriers.
We must in some way, in some manner, both intangibly and tangibly, work towards strengthening our value and ties to the carriers. Vendors simply provide the administrative management of our technical services; they are the "flow - through".
Part of this necessary effort on our part to create and maintain a perceived value to the carriers, is our community standing against carnival hucksters who come along trying to find the next place to chip a new drain hole in the carrier's hull.
The carriers do not have a bottomless well of claims dollars flowing out to the whim of the roofing industry lobbyist du jour. Like all wells, when the volume available gets low, the outflow will slow, and rationing of the available dollar supply will be a reality. This happens in all business or industry when the bottom too often becomes visible.
Kile and PoppaCat are to be commended for their strong and consistent efforts at negating the scurrilous allegations of the latest huckster to come into our playground.
Remember, the carrier is our only real lifeline to survival as independent contractors supplying a service to their claims departments; it is not the vendors.
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/21/2003 14:58:12
Message:
Whoa, Nellie!
Catdaddy, your first two paragraphs started to go someplace, then out of nowhere we went off on an interesting tangent. Then, we have Clayton doing a cheerleaders cheer. (Gotta tell ya Clayton, the image of your hairy legs in a cheerleaders outfit scares me.)
That Big Red and the rest of the carriers got a greenback enema in Texas from mold is Not the fault of the claims department. The one and only fault lies in the industry not recognizing the power of the 'consequential loss clause' in the Texas HO-B. It took that P.A. in Corpus to show the light and insert the tube up the industry orfice. And, shove it he did! For the carriers to take it out on the claims department who is out there properly performing their function is beyond the pale.
For you to crow the company line is a form of gallows humor because the staff adjusters are the next in line to swing off into eternity after the independents. My friend, we are all in the same leaky bass boat here. And, the effect on layed off staff people is worse because you folks have been sheltered in the shadow of job security when, in fact, there is none. We as independent businessmen have grown accustomed to this for a long, long time. So, as they let the trap door out from under you, welcome to our world where there is no group health plan, no profit sharing, no annual picnic, no Xmas party, no volumes of memos from Home Office, no performance reviews, and no pay raises for your extraordinary feats of heroism and service to the fine Insureds!
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/21/2003 16:01:07
Message:
Leaky bass boat. LOL.
I was not trying to cast blame towards any of us GB. I get alittle patriotic and defensive when talking about the Mother Ship and the tone can be deceptive.
People like Lon, trying to tell us our business, looking for an angle to make his money 'cause he can't make it out here with the rest of us, REALLY makes my thorns stick straight out!
The adjusters are all in it together. Staff or IA. When the dam breaks, we are all gone. What's the difference if you get to leave before the traffic gets bad or you get to stay late and turn out all the lights for the last time. Its all pays the same.
I would like to add to the list of things IAs and staffers agree on, this. We can call it number 5. Lets dont give these peckerheads(as in WOODpecker) like Lon any more ammo than they dream up themselves. Can I get an amen? I am sure sitting in your living room, watching Springer, eating pot pies, and calling yourself a Consultant doesnt pay much unless there are people listening. Let'm starve. Pretty soon that tear off money will look good to even him. Its the circle of life!
CD
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/21/2003 16:48:35
Message:
About a 6 hour drive NW of here is the start of our moose country, where the Forestry people won't let loggers knock down any "cavity trees", so as not to disturb the habitat and nesting areas for the Red Headed Peckerhead. Obviously, some damn logger cut a fir down that knocked over an unstable cavity tree probably in early September, that caused the willy nilly migration and blathering of one of those Peckerhead species, and its eventual perch on our yard pole.
All adjusters must find common and positive ground, whether we come from Mount Staff or IA Valley, and learn to protect our industry to the benefit of our mutual existence.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/21/2003 17:29:51
Message:
I guess 6 hours north of you is farther than Penitang!(can't spell the whole town name.)I had a claim on a TV reporter out of Barrie when I was in Toronto for Ice Storm '99. She said hello to me on the news the next morning. She was a fox!
CD
Reply author: jlombardo
Replied on: 10/21/2003 17:51:53
Message:
Clayton.....last post...nicely said......Thanks......Joe L.
Reply author: Tom Toll
Replied on: 10/21/2003 19:13:15
Message:
Lon, here is an example of what we have to deal with everyday. This is a claim we handled, a really tough roof to measure, a rectangle, one ridge, no offsets, no valleys, no dormers, just a rectangle. Our measurements were correct and the roofers measurements were the same as ours, 19 squares, but he wants 2 squares more. This was after we had left the area. Here is his explanation of why two extra squares are needed as a supplement in his own handwriting and faxed to us:
" ridge cap was doubled -extra shingles was used to hold felt down at ridge cap being tore off and recovered to ridge cap the next day." two bundles left and part of bundle at location.
Can anyone out there please explain to me what the heck this professional roofer is talking about??
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/21/2003 19:16:43
Message:
Getting his Xmas bonus early TT!
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/21/2003 20:21:21
Message:
It's really quite simple if you first sit on a tack.
(The) ridge cap was doubled. (The) extra shingles was [were] used to hold (the) felt down at (the) ridge. (The) (ridge) cap being tore [torn] off and recovered [reshingled] to the ridge cap the next day. Two bundles (were) left (in the truck) and part of (a) bundle (left at the) location (was scattered all in the bushes next to the house).
Now, get up off the tack and you're done.
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/21/2003 20:24:18
Message:
Thanks for the refereeing, Ghost. These boys do like to pile on, don't they?
Clayton. I'm not the one figuring a way to knock any hole in the hull of the USS Insurance Industry!
It is YOU who figure you'll cheat the roofer a little on every claim. I didn't make you cheat. The carrier decided to do it.
I made the offer to PROVE you DO publish on your worksheets the wrong number of squares for removal on every residential roof you write up - EVERY ONE. Whoever said it is all labor is partly correct and we have an established size for a square of shingles. I'm saying it is YOUR industry that cheats that size.
It does sicken me, no end to see people expound on labor when they have no idea what labor costs in the first place. The Peckerwood slurs are what I've come to expect here from Cornelius' former followers. The only personn asking questions and trying to remain unbiased is Ghost.
BTW, if I've EVER paid less than minimum wage to ANY worker you can cross out my name and put yours on my Mensa card right now.
Clayton, I'm not going to bring down the Insurance Industry nor will you or your brethren save it. You place way too much importance on what effect my statements here may have as well as your own.
Tom, I would have to see the ridge to tell you if it were doubled (actually four plies) or single (actually two plies). If two shingles are place on top of each other and then nailed on the ridge at a normal 5" exposure, then you have a four ply ridge which some people refer to as "double" actually the whole roof is doubled along with the ridge. The four ply ridge was a fore-runner of the "sculptured look" common to Elk's Z-Ridge and Timberline's Timber Tex ridge. It was used to "spice up" the look of the first laminated shingles before comparable high-profile ridge products existed.
You may check to see if your pics of the roof indicated a single corner thickness showing at each piece of ridge. If so it was a two ply ridge. If two thickness are apparent at each exposed corner, then you have a four ply.
To amplify on Ghost ridge statement I'll say this. A single ridg (two ply) is standard on most three tabs and amazingly, 100 linear feet also cover 100 square feet so 100 linear feet of ridge is a full square. With a four ply or "doubled" ridge, the squares would be TWO for 100 linear feet unless you ask Kile and then since they are installed vertically, they are still only a square and the same would hold true of eight roofs if they were laid on top of each other - the no more square feet theory really allows as many vertical feet of roofing as you want to say are included since "you can get a shovel under all of them" as Catdaddy theorized.
Been there, done that and when they are nailed on with separate fasteners at separate times, then YOU guys need to "Feel the Love" in being able to rip off multiple layers nailed separately and enjoy "gravity" making them slide neatly into the dump truck. LOL
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/21/2003 20:41:53
Message:
Lon, we've discussed your sassiness before. I don't want to have to discuss it again. The query has been put forth about tear off and exactly what it entails. The answer must come from the people or firms that research and formulate the prices in the line items of our software. By the way, I recall that the trolls at Big X once told me that the biggest portion of their customer base was the contracting industry. Do you use Big X or have you ever been a part of their survey, or do you know anyone in your field that has filled out their pricing survey?
Therein will lie the answer to this part of the thread. Just what is the breadth of the scope for RFG 220 (-)?
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/21/2003 22:29:20
Message:
Here's an intersting one. I went out to look at a roof way out in the country. An hour of drive time from the office. It was an elderly farmer and his equally elderly wife. I get there and there are bundles of shingles on the driveway and the back side of the roof had already been torn off. I took a look and sure enough there is hail damage on the front slope, no problem. But what really struck me as strange was the back slope still had the original felt on it. The shingles had been torn off but the old felt was left in place. It was torn in places but had been repaired by either renailing or patching it. I tried to ask the homeowners what was going on but they were too elderly to even understand my questions.
Has anyone ever seen shingles torn off but not the felt? This was a first for me.
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/21/2003 22:44:52
Message:
Ghost, I have had occasion to see and use all the major estimating softwares used by the claims industry but the tear off cheat was GIVEN to X and the other BY the claims industry and they were TOLD to use that formulary.
Now the sassiness warning is duly noted but also protested in the post below since there are far SASSIER comments directed at me from other Cado posters.
How about a comparison of SASSINESS?
I would like to see how my sassy comments stack up with a few I copied below from Cado posters.
BTW, it is still not my fault several people get defensive here. That is a usual reaction when they know they’ve been caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
ALL of you guys understand the math, yet most everyone ignores the truth and waits for X or someone else to tell them it’s okay to measure a roof’s tear off shingles correctly. Why are you all afraid of the truth? The tear off volume is a definable mathematical entity. It is easily proven by weight and easily figured. AND… If I’m wrong, it is an incredibly easy win for charity. Why no takers? The question really needs no answer because you ALL know the truth. - FEAR – I’m shaking your foundation. I’m questioning your authority, your honesty and your willingness to cover for the carriers in the face of overwhelming evidence that the tear off volume is written incorrectly to lower claims dollars. All this covering up while complaining about lawyers, roofers and public adjusters is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"We work for the carrier or work for the vendor" is a POOR excuse for helping them cover up an intentionally repeated untruthful formulary.
Don’t blame X when the carrier GAVE X the formulas THEY wanted in the software. It SURELY doesn't appear in Roofing Industry Estimating Software.
Ghost, I can totally live with being booted for "sassiness" since it will be proof that mob mentality and playground bullying is alive and well along with your site's own proprietarily exclusive "sassiness" here on the Planet of the Adjusters.
Here are the NON-SASSY comments of the wannabe schoolyard bullies who think I’m working on the net tear off scam as some class action mantra to feather my pockets.
Au Contraire, followers of the Great Cornelius. His questioning of me last year was as eloquent as his explanation of why I was wrong. His closing argument as to the validity of the tear off math? “How long have you been a roofer, MR. Sterling.” Any debate team would have been proud to have Cornelius leading it. Such fervor and such reasoning pointed out for all to see that the reason the tear off issue should be considered a non-issue was that it had come from a roofer!
My reason for posting the tear off question - I PURSUE THE TRUTH EACH OF YOU IS COMPLICIT IN HIDING.
The follwing APPARENTLY UN-SASSY comments are direct quotes from the following posters. Each of the participants should take pride in ganging up to hide the truth.
Catdaddy: I agree the ridge and starter rows are there. Lon, I would just suggest a wider snow shovel for the poor illegal immigrant that you are paying less than minimum wage to tear if off. Lon: You see he even agrees he is cheating on ridge and starter but thinks it’s warranted because he thinks I use illegal aliens and pay them less than the minimum wage. Turn me in if that’s what you think - (you'll be in for a surprise) but don’t say that gives you the right to lie about the tearoff volume.
Catdaddy again: These attempts to add fluff to estimates, finding a way to start a class action, get over on the big insurance companies will not benefit anyone in the long run. Lon: Now I’m padding estimates? Turn me in for insurance fraud PLEASE! That would be the solution – not cheating me because you don’t like what I’m saying and can’t prove me wrong.
Catdaddy again: Some of you are insured by these companies and when you try to stick it to them on the front, it's gonna get you in the rear. People like Lon are whats ruining this industry for all of us. Why do you think carriers can't pay vendors more, and vendors can't pay adjusters more? Cause people like Lon keep coming up with ways to try to make a quick buck. Lon: Sorry, CD, it is YOUR soulmates who are cheating the tearoff. Can’t prove me wrong? Call me some more names – that always seems to bring cheers from the spectators.
Lon, talking like adsusters think roofers should talk, "Ain’t no sassiness here neither.")
CCarr: While this thread has had some interesting moments after the initial question was dealt with, carnival hucksters that come along into our industry do little but further gray the water.
CCarr: Part of this necessary effort on our part to create and maintain a perceived value to the carriers, is our community standing against carnival hucksters who come along trying to find the next place to chip a new drain hole in the carrier's hull. Lon: I’m not the one trying to cheat the tear off on every claim. It is your industry with your help.
CCarr: Kile and PoppaCat are to be commended for their strong and consistent efforts at negating the scurrilous allegations of the latest huckster to come into our playground.Lon: Perhaps you should check the definition of huckster. It might describe a person who attempts to divert attention from the truth by using evasive tactics instead of proving your method is correct.
And a veritable “Laundry List” of insults pulled from just a few of Catdaddy’s musings:
Catdaddy: Almighty Lon - Another gumwrapper fact for sure - These attempts to add fluff to estimates - People like Lon are whats ruining this industry for all of us - Cause people like Lon keep coming up with ways to try to make a quick buck - People like Lon, trying to tell us our business, looking for an angle to make his money 'cause he can't make it out here with the rest of us, REALLY makes my thorns stick straight out - Lets dont give these peckerheads(as in WOODpecker) like Lon any more ammo than they dream up themselves. Can I get an amen? I am sure sitting in your living room, watching Springer, eating pot pies, and calling yourself a Consultant doesnt pay much unless there are people listening. Let'm starve. Pretty soon that tear off money will look good to even him. Its the circle of life!
CCarr: - Obviously, some damn logger cut a fir down that knocked over an unstable cavity tree probably in early September, that caused the willy nilly migration and blathering of one of those Peckerhead species, and its eventual perch on our yard pole.
AND I’M SASSY?
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/21/2003 22:53:09
Message:
Kile,
I've seen the no new felt trick hundreds of times. In Aledo, TX in 2001, Allstate was paying low prices and roofers were conspiring with insureds to save part of their deductibles.
The trick they were using was to leave the felt, the metal edging, the vents and even the starter in place.
Of course felt is required as is metal and starter - the felt because the vacant nail holes now make the felt next to worthless AND against most codes.
Reported the roofers to the code officials - nothing was done. Sent a letter to the rooked homeowners and some got refunds on the felt from the roofers but no roof changeout.
In my book, both the insureds and the roofers should have been pistol whipped and given their claim money back to Allstate.
Allstate clearly did not figure enough money for complying with codes but the roofers and homeowners who skirted the rules were equally guilty.
Reply author: stormincontractor
Replied on: 10/21/2003 23:41:47
Message:
You guys have to much time...
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/22/2003 07:13:51
Message:
Lon, there are a large number of things that I am "not", and it doesn't bother me a bit to admit them.
Four of those "nots" that come to mind fairly frequently lately are - I am not young anymore, I'm not really interested in the technical issue of this thread anymore, I'm not an expert on roofing, and I'm not a follower nor have I ever been a follower of the Cornelius that you have mentioned several times.
With regards to the latter point, I am surprised that the two of you have not met at some dusty junction of the many trails in this thread. Your Cornelius is still amongst us in a rather deceptive guise; but with the same pompeity.
Lon, you are not going to score a victory on your issue in this web site. I respect you for your courage and tenacity to pursue it here with such vigor, I truly mean that. As well, although I do not agree with all you have to say, you do have a good ability to present your thoughts. As to my "sassiness", in part as a response to yours towards others, in part as a defensive comment, and in part as an expression of frustration for a thread that has run its course; however none of it was expressed with any malicious intent to you.
Lon, you raised an issue, you presented your side, the rebuttals are clear. What is the point in continuing to pound away at it on this web site?
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/22/2003 08:03:29
Message:
I think it is a valid question. I thought so last year and I still do. I believe a demonstration of this issue should be put on with witnesses from CADO and the Texas Department of Insurance present as well as invited representatives from the carriers and the plaintiffs legal industry.
A simple one square gabled shed would suffice in the parking lot of the TDI in Austin. Tell me when it will happen and I'll show up wearing a maroon shirt and khaki pants.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/22/2003 08:53:10
Message:
I'm glad someone else has seen this strange reuse of felt too. With all the extra labor and hassle involved in trying to tear off the shingles and leave the felt intact it seems to me that it would be cost prohibitive. Felt isn't that expensive or difficult to install. How much are they really saving by going through all the trouble?
Reply author: catmanager
Replied on: 10/22/2003 11:30:43
Message:
Kile,
It has been my experience ( I worked for a family member's resto business for a short while after I got out of school, before I became an adjuster), that roofers that re-use felt aren't going to extra lengths to do so, it is actually easier (not to mention all of the roofs I've seen with NO felt)not to tear it off.
When the tear-off crew starts stripping the roof, depending on the age and condition of the shingles, they can actually be torn off by hand, and come off in large chunks, 5-10 shingles at a time (the nails hold them together). Except for the nails, the shingles' tar strip sticks them together, but not to the felt.
What you then have is a roofing surface that generally leaves a large percentage of the felt in place, except for the occasional tear here and there, with hundreds if not thousands of nails sticking up.....The surface must be prepared then by either hand-pulling all of those nails, or simply pounding them flat into the deck surface. Tearing off the felt would be an extremely tedious process not only because of the roofing nails left behind, but also the large plactic-caps used to originally hold the felt into place. Most of the quality roofers I've seen, will, after the shingles are removed and the deck surface has been prepared, will re-felt over the surface, over whatever felt was left behind. I'm sure some would just patch the felt as you described, butI would think (or like to ) that percentage is low (but it has been over 8 years).
So I think to answer your question, they are not really trying to save the money on the materials, but leaving the felt, which is very difficult and time consuming to remove, is saving them labor. Most individual roofers (the actual laborers, sub-contractors themselves)in the south get paid by the sq of tear-off, and by the sq when installing. They have no personal interest in seeing the complete felt being torn off (save for the occasional deck patch)and only want to get the nailable surface smooth as quick as possible so they can start to lay shingles....Most of them, then, do not even consider not felting the job.....The crews I had experience with actually divided the job into two parts, tear off (some had separate crews) and install (with the experienced installers as opposed to more general labor). It was generally the tear-off crews' responsibility to strip, prepare, and felt (To help protect against pop-up thunderstorms). Then the roof would be better prepared should it rain or if the installing crew wasn't ready until the next day. (Most 20-30 sq roofs (one-story 4:12)were torn-off and reinstalled by a crew of 4-8 in less than an eight hour day).
I agree with Clayton, there is really no use in continuing the discussion with the "visitor". Arguable points were made, and in my opinion, the truth, as it usually does, falls somewhere in between. There actually are more shingles than the actual SF of the deck surface in place, but I know it is NOT the full 10% allowed for WASTE on the install. The number of starters and ridge on the surface during tear-off is what is left over of the 10% that was trash and thrown into the dump truck during installation. To me, this is just splitting hairs.
What does any visitor from the construction industry think he has to gain from his bashing of the accepted standards that we as individuals are forced to use?, and that the overwhelming majority of his own colleages willingly (and profitably) accept?
Roofing, by the job, in my experience,is extremely profitable, or at the least, more profitable than a lot of other trades. After the 5/5/95 storm in DWF, the number of ads in the yellow pages for roofers jumped from just over 400 to over 800 the next year. I'm sure some of the venom unwisely injected into this site has to be a result of the trend towards % deductibles (that can't be made up with "advertising allowances" or just (illegally) swallowed by the roofers anymore), rising internal costs (insurance, etc). I do not know the specifics of todays profitability, but in 95, in Texas, a general unit cost I saw was $18 off and $78 on. Materials averaged $25-27. The laborer was paid $8 to tear off and prepare the deck, including felt(and dump fee). The laborer was paid $5/bundle ($15/sq) to put on. That is a total (and yes I know prices have changed, and other areas are more)$47/sq.....I would and have stated to roofers that wanted to add O&P to the bill that the other $40 or so dollars was the O&P.....Ask to see the actual check paid to the crew and the material invoice for the job and you will not get it, and generally the discussion will end.
There is nothing constructive to be gained by any of us by continuing to split hairs with people that do not even know there is nothing constructive that can be gained (more money for him)by trying to prove who is right or wrong, by bashing the standards that are set much higher (or lower? LOL)up the food chain than independent adjusters.....
Is 5-8% of actual difference on the tear off price on a standard 20 sq roof (1- 1.5 X $25/sq) really that big of a deal? What about the recent trend towards including a dumpster charge of $300-500 where in the past the dump fee was included in the price? - RFG 220 in Xactimate shows that price INCLUDES dump fees, hauling and disposal!!!!Put your felt on, roofer, regardless if some estimate doesn't state it. Some estimates do, some don't. Do you want to see individual line items for the boxes of nails, too? How about the electricity it costs to run a nail-gun?
I would think our visitor might find more sympathy and about as much ability to change this self-percieved horrible wrong in a roofer's forum somewhere rather on CADO!
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/22/2003 12:37:54
Message:
Okay gents,
I'll drop the tear off point since Ghost's idea is EXACTLY what a contingent of us proposed to Sheriff Montemayor. However, unbeknowst to many of you here, he was not interested if the practice hurt only roofers.
As for Catmanager's reply on felt, most of it was factual and well-written. Leaving the old felt is fine as long as fasteners are pulled or nailed in and as long as a new layer is installed properly over the old one. As far as his conjecture about '95 labor rates in DFW, there may have been a few crews who settled for those wages but they were not as experienced or as good as the norm. also absent from "labor rates are sales commissions and supervisory wages (sorta like the adjuster and cat manager fees and salaries for your business model)
Plus, I NEVER indicated the "cut waste" was not there. It weighs in at approximately 1 1/2% - 3% of the jobs net NOT the 10% - 15%, making the "on" for a hip 15% (since the shingles are bought and used even though scraps are cut off) and the "off" 12% or thereabouts.
So for the moment, the insurance industry is free to continue that and other practices that will eventually ruin it. (BTW,one of those happens to be dictating lower prices to cat djusters just like they do to roofers. Sadly, the young industrious Kile's of the industry will be put out to pasture similar to the computer industry's reliance of exporting tech support jobs to Indian immigrants who will work for lower wages - never mind that the consumer spends three times as long trying to understand the broken English support instructions.)
Back to the hail damage discussion that was the original thrust of this thread and the felt question brought up by Kile.
First, Kile's labor philosophy is a good one but with rising deductibles and paltry price increases doled out by insurers that don't keep pace with real world costs, those corners cut are actually part and parcel to the only substantial profit margins these con men "roofers" see.
A thirty square roof will use approximately $220 in felt and plasti-caps including tax. The same roof will have another $150 in starter and metal edging. The labor saved in not tearing those off will come in at around $150 and the disposal, gasoline or trucking expense will drop it another $30.
So a "roofer" can increase his "profit" by $550 on a thirty square roof.
He will use most of that "profit" to acquire the sale by giving the consumer a lower and more attractive bid which you guys help out by paying it ALL up front and allowing the consumer to get "help" on his deductible without actually breaking the law.
Don't think the carriers don't know what they're doing. THAT'S why they write the check up front - they know the homeowner will SHOP for a low bid. This way, the roofer doesn't have to pad the estimate to help with the owner's deductible. Caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place by having the choice of corner cutters helping save the dedcutibles up front or by having crooks pad the estimate on the back end, the insurance industry took the former.
They should have pursued the "padders" since there are rules that allow insurers to do that and to prosecute those offenders. Then they wouldn't have been complicit in funding the corner-cutting they know is happening.
It is sad that the opportunity to make a quick buck takes precedence over the protection of one of the home's most integral parts but human nature is not always pretty nor does it look at long-term ramifications.
I blame consumer greed, insurer greed and contractor greed for this situation. It is a genuine shame, however, that carriers 1) don't recognize the danger of their actions and 2) that front line adjusters do not have more say in dictating policy in these areas. You guys are more knowledgeable than carriers and con men "roofers" - now if we could make you as knowledgeable as REAL professional roofers and then make carriers RESPECT your knowledge and ours, we would be somewhere.
As long as "roofers" - who might have been commercial finish out contractors the week before a storm agree to do "tha Job" for the price "dictated" by insurers there will continue to be a redefinition of "tha job" brought about by an increasingly downward spiral in overall roofing quality. It will continue to be driven equally by greedy insureds who want to save on premiums through lower deductibles, carriers who mandate that many separated items from software estimating programs be "included at no extra charge", and a never-ending supply of corner-cutting dishonest and poorly-trained "roofers".
The sad thing is that the lower pricing aggressively "created" by skewed surveys will only signal final disaster for roofs and THEN the industry will wind up paying bigtime. Why? Because it is always deemed to have superior knowledge, "deeper pockets" and more culpability than the consumer.
Jennifer, be careful about two things on checking for hail. 1. Bruises that caused visible granule loss (not just granules in the gutter but spots) WILL signal an onset of UV degradation and therefore are NOT considered "harmless" by manufacturers or DOI's. 2. Fracturinmg of the mat is no longer a prerequisite to considering a shingle with a fiberglass mat damaged by hail no matter what Haag might say. Separation and cracking of the asphalt coating that bonds to the mat will allow the porous fiberglass mat to take on water wheter the mat is fractured or not. Take it from one who knows - this "no mat fracture defense" wins only temporarily when there is not an expert around to argue. Now that you know, I'm sure there are calls that can me made to ANY shingle manufacturer or to any Certified and Licensed Roof Consultant who will back up those studies so you won't just have to take my word for it.
As far as the HO-145 cosmetic damage waiver signed by insureds in Texas on some Impact Resistant roofs, the Texas Department of Insurance has already ruled that bruises causing granule loss that permit sufficient UV rays to hit bare coating are NOT considered cosmetic and therefore may not be excluded by the waiver as such.
As dumb as I am, I never "tore off no shingles" and when treated in a civil fashion can sometimes be informative to even the most seasoned adjuster.
I know we aren't in court but just think how well yelling "Roofer! Roofer! Look at what this other roofer did!" would play in front of a jury when used as a rebuttal to my factual and provable assertions. It may work here when the 'attaboys' flow forth and when the cyber crowd cheers, but it is inherently hollow as a answer.
Thanks for your time. Believe it or not, I am here in your playhouse to offer ideas and methods of improvement in much the same way I do with the roofing industry. My manner got your attention. The rest is up to you.
Believe it or not, I would rather help to evoke change through knowledge than through the court system.
By the way, there have been some very intelligent responses to the latter portions of this thread. My compliments to those of you who made them.
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/22/2003 15:56:19
Message:
That's much better! Your post was strident and passionate without being offensive. Thank you, I knew you could do it. Your thought processes showed development and rationale was lucid. Excellent!
Now you can have a cookie! No one is perfect, we all gather here to relax, learn from each other, and have a few grins. In fact, the last adjuster who was perfect wound up with nail holes in his hands almost 2100 years ago. Outside the clubhouse is a rough and tumble world, inside is our refuge where we strive to be tolerant and get along with each other. Except, of course, for a certain Canadian and North Carolinian who refuse to wash their hands before returning to work!
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/22/2003 19:15:04
Message:
Lon, what is used to measure whether "sufficient UV rays" are hitting the mat after granule loss? What reference is used to arrive to a conclusion of damaged or not?
And if the mat is visible and exposed to sunlight/UV rays due to a hail impact, isn't that more likely to be considered a markable "hit" anyway?
Reply author: Tom Toll
Replied on: 10/22/2003 20:07:31
Message:
Thanks for the help guys, I actually knew what the roofers fax meant. Lon it was two ply, 20 year Tamco shingles. The owner hired her handy man to roof the house. She is an attorney and the house was a rental. She is recovering her 500.00 deductible any way she can. I do understand roofing matters, having been in this wierd business for 43 years. I roofed when I was a kid and decided realy quick that it was not a profession I was interested in. I built two houses for myself and family, from slab up, so I know all the trades of construction.
We have written, so far, over 100 estimates and have agreed prices on all of them with the local boys, no fussing, no fighting. We all need to make a decent living in this business, including all trades, but an honest one. As far as your analysis, it has merit, but you should indulge to present your case to the folks that cut the checks, the insurance companies. We have no control on what they want or ask us to do, if we wish to continue working. Sad, but very true. Roofing is a tough job, at least to the ones on the roof handling the material, scraping the roofs off, laying out the felt and slamming the shingles on. Thats one reason you see very few of us U.S. citizens doing it. It is a lowly and hard job, with very little pay, so we think it is beyond dignity. I wonder if that might be a reason Companies are moving over seas. Anyway, thanks for becoming one of us and doing it in a diplomatic way. I was beginning to wonder if you had failed the Dale Carnegie courses.
Reply author: Johnd
Replied on: 10/22/2003 20:19:24
Message:
Lon, you have managed to partially change the mind of this old adjuster toward the stereotype "roofer" with your prose. I can only wish that someone from each of the building trades with your ability to communicate would step forward and "hold forth" like you have. While, I still do not think there will be any change to the price structure of roofing tear-off, I do understand your argument. Apparently the industry has evolved into the mindset that this is the way it has and will be handled. Kind of nice to see a civil discourse here where we can agree to disagree.
Reply author: Brooks Todd
Replied on: 10/22/2003 22:55:11
Message:
Greetings:
Every good roofer leaves the original felt on. This is to prevent another claim, in case of asudde storm. Then you drive all the nails in and ccover wwith 1 more layer.
Yes of course it is easier thant tearing it all off, weight is not a problem, and it is a great preventitive measure.
BLT
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/22/2003 22:56:47
Message:
Bad roofers leave it on too Brooksie!
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/23/2003 00:13:45
Message:
Aw shucks, fellas.
Ghost, I don't know whether I can drag that cookie down this hollow hole in my tree but I'll try. Thanks. What do I have to do for milk?
Catdaddy, let me clear up the broken coating issue along with UV degradation.
Here are your questions:
Catdaddy: Lon, what is used to measure whether "sufficient UV rays" are hitting the mat after granule loss?
Lon: First, I did not say that UV rays had to hit the mat. They don't. They only have to shine on the non-protected coating (the asphalt that waterproofs the mat). So bruises which show coating even without mat breakage 1) will void the manufacturer's warranty. 2) are not considered cosmetic no matter what Big Red or Haag say.
If there are no visible fractures there can also still be damage. Since it is a judgement call, I look first for visible missing granules - I NEVER EVER have made a case for granules in the gutter, on the driveway or in the flower bed, EVER! Shedding granules is a fact of life for ALL granule covered roofing materials.
The area which is missing granules (unless it is a break that can cause structural distress) must be large enough to allow significant UV rays to hit the coating. Generally hail BRUISES need to be larger than a dime in size. (Smaller than that and I have doubts about their even being caused by hail)
The absence of these visible bruises, however doesn't mean you are home free. It simply means you need to also eliminate other potential manifestations of hail being present before you deny there is hail damage.
The actual size of the "bare spot" or the size of the indentation that will eventually let go of granules due to the bruise, is certainly not always perfectly quantifiable. However, as I said, dime sized bald spots are hard to miss and even without mat frasctures they signal the beginning of UV degradation.
I actually agree with a FEW of Haag's theories, however on a percentage basis, I agree less than half the time and find that their assessment of repairability and its subsequent reformulation in certain labor models by some insurers to be simply way off base - even un-doable.
Catdaddy: What reference is used to arrive to a conclusion of damaged or not?
Lon: Visible spots of bare coating - not mat - is the indicator for future UV degradation. To amplify on fractures and the like, you must understand that, unlike old organic shingles, the new fiberglass mats are not waterproof. Old organic mats were actually asphalt saturated felt and were waterproof entities in and of themselves just like today's underlayment. The coating and the granules were added to the inner felt layer to lengthen the short lifespan which would be expected with no further protection.
Today's fiberglass is porous and must have coating on top and below the mat with connection through the fibers in the mat. After the granules are applied, it does become a slightly more hearty product from a blistering standpoint than were the old organic shingles. It is a more cohesive and less contaminated product for the most part.
What studies and destructive tests are indicating today is that the coating can be cracked BELOW the granules by hail. These cracks may not, at the same time, crack the mat and indeed, the mat may never crack from the hail. However the death blow dealt to the shingle is the ability of the water to pass through the cracks. Once it reaches the mat, it will pass directly through the mat because a fiberglass mat looks like flattened angel hair (not the pasta but the Christmas decoration). This exceedingly porous layer is the "rebar", if you will, in the concrete. It's purpose is to to keep the hardened asphalt coating from cracking and falling apart due to its minimal thickness and tensile strength. Adding thickness without extra plies of "rebar" or fiberglass causes the "alligatoring" you see on patched asphalt drives, commercial roofs - similar to dried up pond beds.
That is why Built Up Roofs are "Built Up" using layers with thin interply moppings of hot asphalt in between layers. Bottom line - cracking of the asphalt even without tearing or fracturing the coating is destructive and it is considered real damage by all manufacturers.
Catdaddy: And if the mat is visible and exposed to sunlight/UV rays due to a hail impact, isn't that more likely to be considered a markable "hit" anyway?
Lon: Yes, Catdaddy. Those are the EASY ones. I have also spotted some very hard ones and different mats make different shingles manifest damage in different ways. The hardest I ever had to spot was the old Johns-Manville "Woodlands" style shingle (made in the same way a Timberline or other such laminated shingles were produced.)
J-M actually produced the FIRST fiberglass matted laminated shingles. However, it took a couple of hailstorms to prove to me that these shingles NEVER bruised. The coating was extra thin and the tensile strength of the mat was off the scale LOW. We saw a lot of these put over cedar roofs in the early and mid 80's because they had a SIX inch exposure and unlike FIVE inch Timberline, they could be "nested" on a roof even though you were losing half an inch of material on every course or about 10% and it cost you that much more labor, too.
The advantage was the loss of the rippled line every four or five courses occasioned by the shorter exposure on the Timberline when they could not "nest" or be butted against the cedar shingle butts without overexposure.
These J-M Woodlands perplexed me as a younger man when I saw no bruises but found semi-circular "cuts" all over the roof. My first thought? You gotta laugh. "Had to be some roofer walking on the roof with cowboy boots and tearing thes shingles", I thought. Then my awakening in forensics occurred.
I visited another house in the same hail-pummeled area also with a J-M fiberglass lamainate over cedar but lo and behold, they had used an organic ridge shingle on this one and it showed the classic bruises and granule loss of the softball sized hail that had hit the area. I looked closely at the fiberglass J-M field and found hundreds of the same half-moon shaped cuts I had seen on the other house. The cuts themselves were not much thicker than a human hair but the shingles were broken all the way through! That's what really started my forensic passion about roofs.
Manufacturers will ALWAYS refuse to honor a material warranty where hail has left visible openings in the granules that cover the coating because that signals the beginning of the end of the life of the roof.
Climate determines how long it takes for the process of UV degradation to eventually cause a leak.
To the people like Tom Toll, Ghost, Johnd, Wm. Cook and even those of you who booted me around a bit but were men enough to come back and say that I had some valid points, I thank you. We are actually in the same boat with our fates inextricably tied to the whims of carriers and consumers. We do the best we can and take one day at a time.
Do I think I'll change tear off policy? I won't right away but my wish is NOT to bankrupt the insurance indutry - it is to point out alternative ways to achieve a profitable bottom line for all of us.
I'm climbing back into the hollow hole in my tree in the forest until another day. I may come out tomorrow or next year. Don't chop my tree down. My wife is part Spotted Owl. She's protected and you'll be in worse trouble than ANY DOI could posssibly rain down upon your chainsaw-weilding butts!
G'night
Reply author: goose
Replied on: 10/23/2003 05:05:39
Message:
Farmers, this past spring, came out with a memo that said the shingle must actually be bruised- and they said to lift the shingle and look on the underside to verify this. I am not currently working for them since I am at the hurricane, so I do not know if that is becoming SOP or was just one of many memos that are soon forgotten. I asked if they meant that loss of granules was not necessarily hail damage and was told that was exactly what they meant. I adjusted my claims the way I always do and had no problems, but I was near the end when I received the memo.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/23/2003 08:39:58
Message:
And that is the way you should adjust claims, the way the company you are working for tells you too. Its their money, not yours. When it yours, you can spend it how you like.
If you were not insured and a hail storm hits your neighborhood and you, with your years of experience as a cat adjuster, climbed up there and found no common hail damage, the type you have been circling forever, then Lon drops by and says "Hey, you have thousands of microscopic hairline cracks in the granule layer of your shingles. You need a new roof and here is my estimate. Please note the tear off amount is the same as the application amount. Please sign here. Trust me, I'm not just a roofer, I'm a consultant!"
What are you gonna to with YOUR money in that situation?
You guys that think because you read it here, its all facts. This is a forum where most of us don't even use our real names. Why is everything that comes out of a stranger's mouth a fact when it means an adjuster might be able to bill more for it and it's BS when the situation is reversed?
Insurance companies cannot afford to not pay valid claims. Its called bad faith. Its what 100 million dollar lawsuits are made of. So if all this theory that we have been wading through was any more than just that, how could insurance companies not adhere to those guidelines? The answer is they could not. Because two people looking to prove something climb on the same roof and agree to some made-up idea doesnt make it an industry standard by any means.
Lon, asks these guys if they are going to adjust hail claims based on what you say or what the carrier they are working for says. I think you might have said all that for nothing. Sorry.
CD
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/23/2003 11:06:43
Message:
Catdaddy, you remain amazingly uninformed, arrogant and combative. I'll say this one more time for the benefit of the poster who worked for Farmers and seems to be genuinely seeking information.
That method of lifting the shingles to find a tear in the back coating is insuffficient in and of itself in determining damage when bruises are present and a porous fiberglass mat is concerned. Destructive testing has proven it. An organic shingle's mat was a different story. Fiberglass shingles must be looked at with with the knowledge that they will react differently.
It has been my experience that carriers work using the theory of large numbers They will continue to setlle claims 'slightly' unfairly as long as they have some engineering company that advances a bogus theory as to why the damage is from another source. This eliminates most of the chance they might be sued for bad faith since they are "relying" on an "expert".
I fully realize that many companies will put pressure on you to settle roof claims as the poster just described. Farmers has not in the past been above misstating fact, even in DOI investigations. They have been fined for improper behavior in Texas.
I posted an EXACT copy of a letter obtained in an investigation of tear off practices conducted by the Texas Department of Insurance. It clearly showed the they fed the Texas Department bogus figures. At the time, Jim Flynt even suggested sarcastically that "alien intervention" might have caused the letter to say what it did.
Later, the signer of the letter, Farmers' head honcho in Texas, used a flimsy and untrue excuse to blame the content on a employee no longer there even though HE signed the two paragraph letter!
Look in the archives. It is posted there under "Why Must Farmers continue...."
The only thing I agree with about what Catdaddy just opined is that bucking the system alone is dangerous for your "continued employment's health".
However, Catdaddy, to say I'm wrong when you have no personal knowledge of the facts is either stupidity or arrogance at its worst. Besides, you've already admitted you cheat on the tear off figure because you admit the existence of more squares of shingles.
Continuing to slam me when my responses are truthful while you somehow thrust a sort of
"no firsthand knowledge" theory on the world of forensics is laughable.
You must be one of the contenders for Cornelius' throne as keeper of the ancient scrolls.
Again, no matter what you, Farmers or Haag preaches, mat fracture is not required for their to be damage to roofing shingles and membranes. IT ONLY REQUIRES COATING FRACTURE or bruising that permits the onset of UV degradation! And this is the important thing. TDI agrees and so would anyone who had an open mind.
I recently acted in a consultant capacity on a commercial loss where destructive testing was SKIPPED by Haag and a "Fluff" report claimed no damage. Destructive testing later proved that the damage was REAL, WIDESPREAD, AND CAUSED BY HAIL. Once Farmers saw that MORE in depth report, they paid the claim without so much as demanding appraisal, arbitration or mediation.
In my opinion, Haag's very provable (by court records) biased "outcome-based engineering" that sometimes reaches a figure of as much as a 94% record of finding no covered peril damage, will soon get them in some real hot water. Then the carriers who use them should follow because of their complicity in that "tag team" match.
Catdaddy, at least admit that your motivation is job security based along with a healthy dose of "roofer" hate. If not, your ignorance and close-mindedness is off the screen.
Have a great day.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/23/2003 12:32:47
Message:
Have a nice life Lon. I grow weary of this back and forth fairy tale. I think I will continue to utilize the recognized experts and ignore the self-appointed ones.
And I dont hate roofers. Just the roofers that pretend to be something they are not.
CD
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/23/2003 12:46:35
Message:
Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! And, you were doing so well until backsliding into acrimony.
We have no choice but to fit with the Dunce cap and set you in the corner for awhile. Yes, you may go the bathroom first.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/23/2003 13:43:45
Message:
Backsliding is such a strong word GB.
If Lon wants to keep sparring, I'll still be here. Its his turn. Meanwhile, I'll be looking for a more credible opponent. I emailed the MENSA people and asked for an A player this time. They apologized for Lon and are sending MENSA cards for me and all my friends. What's your address? I'll mail ya one!
CD
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/23/2003 14:21:04
Message:
To my staunch supporter, Catdaddy, Recognizing experts because some of the expert communitiy's most ardent insurance supporters have only Civil Engineering degrees and more importantly because they agree with what you WANT the outcome to be is a fine ambition. To a point, it has served the Insurance Industry well.
Catdaddy, since the location associated with your screen name (How quaint you would slam anonymity) is "Tornado Alley", can you tell us which one(s), if any, of those states has adopted the International Residential Code and which ASTM (the ORIGINAL recognized testing entity) number is required for fiberglass strip shingles in the state(s) where the IRC code has been adopted, if it has been?
And, if not, how can you scope a loss that needs shingle replacement or for that matter, tell whether a contractor responding to a pricing survey is using the proper shingles?
Would those shingle requirements be the same (deed restrictions aside) for a single family dwelling, a duplex, a triplex, a quadruplex or a 20 unit residential structure?
ASTM developed the test and qualifications for the shingle standard used in the International Residential Code. You should know that when adjusting losses in the states where the IRC applies if they are in your "home" area or "work" area.
Thanks in advance for your non-reply.
Reply author: CCarr
Replied on: 10/23/2003 14:48:34
Message:
Gee Lon, I thought you said goodnight, with the faint hope that the dust could settle last night. I'm at odds with your allegations concerning engineers, can't say it doesn't happen; just never saw that result in the circle I travelled.
However big fella, I'm afraid that your Cornelius character rubbed off on you a bit - something likely the same as backsliding. Like that shadow, you are now asking verbose technical questions, to which you know - and have at your finger tips - the answers; never understood that strategy. It is a worthy group of questions and I would be interested in the answers, as I surely have no idea, especially as it may apply to the last question of your post.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/23/2003 16:21:26
Message:
I see that gene in him also. You're not broke, sitting in your soiled underwear, next to an empty Jack Daniels bottle are you? Maybe we have found another one of the Cornelius CADO aliases.
I have only one question for you. What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen African swallow?
Thanks in advance for your non-reply.
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/23/2003 16:34:13
Message:
Guys, enough of the baiting already. Much more of this and Senor Roy will have to be called in cleanse the thread. I suggest we just let it go.
Reply author: CatDaddy
Replied on: 10/23/2003 16:52:09
Message:
I'm done. No need for cleansing. Roofer good. Granule loss bad. Me understand.
Can I take this pointy hat off and come out of the corner now? I have to go to the bathroom again.
CD
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/23/2003 20:48:36
Message:
One last question for Lon, did you ever think that Haag has a 94% record of finding no damage because the insurance company won't spend the money on the engineering report unless they absolutely know that there is no hail damage. If they think it may be there or if they are just not sure they will probably pay the claim. There is no use in spending $1500 to get an engineer to tell you to spend another 5 or 10 grand. They only call the engineer when it is necessary to back up their own findings, not when they are not sure.
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/24/2003 11:50:10
Message:
Kile, that is an excellent point and I will most readily admit that you have a very good body of experience to uphold a major portion of that assumption. It would be true that insurers wouldn't need to use an engineer when the claimant agreed.
I would suggest that the 94% may be accurate on agreement between Haag and Insurers because of one court case involving 82 foundation claims and another where Haag was disqualified as not being disinterested when it came to certain Big Red cases because Big Red already had a pretty good certainty of the way Haag would opine BEFORE they were sent out.
My reason for stating that is the unwillingness of most carriers to question Haag's theories. In my opinion, the effort to please insurers and to create a demand for their C.E. materials taints Haag's necessity to be perceived as impartial.
By the way, those ASTM numbers should be a part of any adjuster's repertoire. As for strip shingles (three tabs and other non-laminated shingles it is ASTM 3462 for fiberglass based shingles).
In my opinion, an adjuster who opines on prices as so many have done in this thread and those who then bring "roofer dishonesty" and "gouging" into the picture should know those things. Without knowing that roofers who are CHEAPER (synonymous with more honest on this board) are even putting on code compliant shingles, how can an adjuster even know if his pricing surveys are accurate or his scopes of loss are correct for the building codes in effect?
I do see your point and recognize its validity and it actually coincides with many of the cases I've seen where insureds are "stirred up" for no reason by roofers who are 1) dishonest or 2) inexperienced and who disagree with competent adjusters.
On the other hand, when I see those, and I'm asked to get involved by a TV station, homeowner, insurer or another roofer, then those are the files that remain closed that some of you never hear about.
However, on ANY commercial loss I see where the claimant was paid for a swep back, flood and re-gravel, I will do ANYTHING I can to show the insurance adjuster is offering a repair that exists in no industry recognized repair manual anywhere. The same hold true for mis-identification of damage, quality, weights, repairability, size and any number of other areas I see vendors and carriers abuse with regularity.
Best wishes,
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 10/24/2003 17:41:57
Message:
Ok, I'm curious. And I mean this with no sarcasm and the utmost of respect. What is the deficiency in the sweep and flood method? Is it that is isn't in a book somewhere or is there some real reason why it isn't acceptable. Please, I'm willing to listen.
Reply author: Lon Sterling
Replied on: 10/24/2003 18:20:02
Message:
No disrespect taken, Kile.
I'm always glad to promote accepted roofing practices and those that are going to last.
The "Spud and Flood" or "Sweep Back Flood and Re-Gravel" immerged long ago when replacement cost wasn't as popular or as prevalent in policies and before forensics helped to quantify damage as much as they do today.
It was normally a "horse-trade" in that the adjuster didn't think there was much, if any, hail damage and the owner didn't know either. He just knew he had leaks.
Along comes Mr. Ex-Sheetrocker, Trim carpenter, you fill in the blank turned roofer who is involved either by the insured or the adjuster. A compromise settlement is reached because 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 of them think "pouring hot tar" on the roof will fix the leaks.
Some of you have even seen empty bags of Portland cement which do a similar "quick fix" on ponded water leaks.
However, the strength and longevity of a built up roof are in the transitions and in the "building up of plies" in a PROPER fashion.
Just as I explained "alligatoring" in another post on shingles, hot tar simply poured on a roof lacks any of the reinforcement necessary to last for more than a few months.
In the old days, before fiberglass felt, organic felt intended for use in built up systems had perforations to allow the asphalt to flow and bond between the plies and to coat the asphalt felts.
While that worked when applied in thin layers, it was learned that a more porous felt using fiberglass allowed more thorough asphalt penetration and bonding.
Back to the "Spud and Flood". No good because without the proper reinforcement or "rebar" in the system, the thick puddles of asphalt will alligator and allow water to penetrate just as it did before.
It is a poor temporary patch sold for WAY more money than it is worth so that the fly-by-night roofer will go along with the deal because of its outrageous profit.
In the long run, it is as bad as a band-aid would be on a "severed artery".
Better to pay NOTHING than to do the Spud & Flood. I have seen dozens of them re-opened and have yet to see an insurer come out on top once it is learned what they suggested even if a contractor goes for it.
Big Red and many of the software people will probably soon regret the presence of that entry on their pricing surveys and estimating software since the only guys answering with a price either don't know any better or, worse, DO know better and are out for a quick buck.
It is too late now for them to find all that old software and old surveys and destroy the evidence and besides, most insureds keep records of the estimating worksheets with their valuable papers.
I'm waiting for the first NRCA member who knows a little bit about "superior knowledge" to get a subrogation letter for a leak on one of these type repairs authorized by an adjuster and signed of on by a supervisor. The fireworks display should be July the 4th-like.
I recently saw (Name Withheld) hit for about $130,000 to redo a roof they had figured a Spud and Flood on several years backs. It didn't even have to go to appraisal. It just took a look at the worksheet where it said Sweep Back Flood and Re-Gravel X number of squares @ $$.
Again, I'm just here pointing out some serious issues that will sooner or later attract litigation, especially given the arrogant lack of knowledge shown by a few.
Problem is, the roofing industry has always been fairly easy to "kick around". However, as the education level of the roofer increases and the claims abuses grow, that may get to be a VERY slippery slope.
Best wishes.
P.S. Does anyone other than myself find it strange that Allstate changed their gross "on" and net "off" formula to net "on" and net "off" shortly after the complaint to the Texas Department of Insurance was re-opened?
Now, it is a net off and net on with an 8% supposed "price add-on". Don't think that flies either, especially under heavy scrutiny of survey prices, but why change at all? Curious minds want to know.
Reply author: JWill
Replied on: 10/31/2003 00:47:05
Message:
I've read this forum with great interest and have enjoyed the truths and non-truths sprayed all about. I have just a few points to make...
1) As adjusters, we are bound to seek out knowledgeable people in all aspects of our files in order to justify our recommendations.
2) If you are licensed to do your job, that makes you a professional. When a carrier tells you to not include or no pay for items and you comply, your license is in jeopardy. An example, you have wind-damaged tabs, no less than seven, yet more than ten in a Haag specific test square on all slopes. Okay, you have wind damage, we buy the roof yet the carrier says, “do not pay for vents, chimney flashing, step flashing, drip, pipe flashing and skylight kits. Is that a proper repair? Have we indemnified the insured properly? What are the ramifications if this roof leaks and the claim reopens and is specific to a flashing as the source? Should we check our E&O coverage? Do we blame the roofer? Do you think the carrier will step up take the blame if a suit follows? Not likely. You be a hangin’ brother. How many of you that comply with this actually make a log entry as to this improperness to cover your own a_s? None I expect. Did you know that your files are governed by the same laws as the carriers in the states that you work in? I believe that our job is to report the facts of the loss, all aspects.
3) As to granule loss, I to have been on thousands of hail damage inspections and made castles out the granules found in the gutters. Yet with due diligence, was hard pressed to find significant impact marks. But, when talking with the insured and neighbors, they all stated that the hail was dime to quarter size and the few minutes that it fell you could shovel it up. You get back on the roof and following the reported path, ignoring the fact that the insured said it was falling straight down and on all sides, bouncing two to three feet in the air in the yard, you start to noticing that the slopes in the reported path although absent of significant impact marks, have a sort of cancer effect to it. Once your eyes focus, you can see that it appears like something scraped here and there in large swatches. Haag would call it a “manufactures defect”, yet you examine the opposing slope and the granule color is consistent over all. Dare I say that the affected slope is damaged? Should I consider that hundreds of pellets just pummeled this slope and knocked all those granules loose? If I were lying out there on the roof when the storm passed, what would I look like? I don’t have much faith in what Haag has to say anymore, I was present when they performed one of their infamous inspections for hail damage and all they could come up with was, manufacture defects, improper installation, and poor maintenance. Yet they didn’t discount that the vents were damaged. Three other firms preformed the same inspection in the same areas and they found damage. Three out of four that is and the carrier ignored the other findings. Astounding.
4) What qualifies us as “roof inspection experts” anyway? What schools did we attend?
Lon, I like your approach to solving problems, you’re writing style, yes, it’s harsh and entertaining.
Kyle, you keep on, your trying and that counts.
CatDaddy, you take things to seriously, I bet the guys at the dairy queen won’t talk to you anymore.
Clayton, you just keep being Clayton.
Great thread Jennifer.
As for me, I’m going back to bush hogging, plenty of sun and beer.
Reply author: Buster Cherry
Replied on: 10/31/2003 06:27:26
Message:
quote:
Originally posted by JWill
2) If you are licensed to do your job, that makes you a professional.
Seriously: Do you really believe that? Does anyone?
Reply author: Ghostbuster
Replied on: 10/31/2003 07:43:47
Message:
Yes! YES! I believe!
I also believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the sanctity of vendors who will put a total stranger on stand-by, and the Loch Ness Monster.
I'm a believeing kind of guy.
Reply author: JWill
Replied on: 10/31/2003 08:34:29
Message:
But you're special kind of guy GB. I believe in those things also and especially, "hereafter".
Reply author: mudclod
Replied on: 11/06/2003 20:40:57
Message:
I am new to adjusting and only have a limited amount of history with roofing, so yes I have a lot to learn, but unless I knew the roof was the first ever on the house (fairly new home), I don't see how the amount of granules in the gutter are a good indicater of damage to the roof. An area with a lot of dust, say from lawn mowing etc. you could have a lot of dirt in the gutters. Is this a method common for telling the amount of damage to shingles?
Thanks
Wayne
Reply author: Tom Toll
Replied on: 11/06/2003 20:45:15
Message:
Of course not. Granule loss is an every day occurrence. Roof training includes the ability to determine covered cause of loss damage.
Reply author: deward1
Replied on: 11/09/2003 07:30:02
Message:
If the roof you are looking at was your home and you do not have insurance to pay your claim would you reroof the house? If you can honestly say yes -- then buy it. If you would not then you do not have a claim for a hail damaged roof. This is a simple ethics question? Indentations seen only in the "perfect setting" does not qualify as a hail damaged roof. If all such roofs were replaced, soon hail damage would go the same direction as flood damage. Common sense and ethics will settle any doubt in your mind.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 11/09/2003 09:06:02
Message:
I don't understand what you're saying. I see your point, but you will never sell to an insured and certainly not to a jury that these hard to find but existing impact marks are not damage.
What about hail damage to a car? It doesn't effect the intended purpose of the car. It still runs. It gets you where you need to be. Some would even say that like a golfball the dimples make it more aerodynamic. But insurance pays to fix it. The same goes for a roof. If the hail damage is detectable then it's damaged.
I often feel the same way when I see a roofer with his eyes 6 inches from the surface of the roof trying to find some hail damage to show me. If it's that hard to find it isn't damaged. But we have to find the line between that situation and the no-brainers where you can see the damage from the ground. It's a tough call. I'd much rather work baseball sized hail than mixed hail or the fringe areas where it is anywhere from peas to golfballs. Those areas where it all depends on the age and brand of the roof. Those are the worst.
I can't use my own standard of would you re-roof the house or not because I'm not all that picky and I'm really practical. Most insureds would never accept what I personally think is a fair settlement.
Reply author: ChuckDeaton
Replied on: 11/09/2003 10:20:58
Message:
One, the insurance contract on a car or anything else has nothing to do with any insurance contract on anything else. Drawing a comparision between two different insurance contracts is a waste of time and misleading.
Two, the key here is that the contract calls for direct physical damage. Once direct physical damage is found and demonstrated the proper repair of that damage is owed.
Of note is the fact that insurance contracts are unilateral, contracts of adhesion, are allegatory in nature and the law of ambiguity applies. All courts construe unilateral contracts against the party that wrote the contract.
All that is needed is to discover adequate evidence of damage within a 100 sq ft area and demonstrate it to a reinspector and estimate the cost of repairing the damage. Most all carriers would rather pay for the repair than to fight.
Reply author: deward1
Replied on: 11/09/2003 12:27:43
Message:
Kile, I didn't mean to not pay a legitimate claim. I am saying that I have been on many roofs with absolutely no damage and every roof on every side of me has been "bought" by some adjuster. Some I am sure had damage, but most did not. This is the same reasoning that so many companies have for paying a roof claim on a flat rate instead of on dollars. I and you both know that there are unscrupulous adjusters that pay for a roof so they can bill more. They look for and often find damage that is not there. It is easier and quicker and I sleep better to come off a roof with no damage and say to the insured, "Are you ever the lucky one, there is no hail damage to your roof. So you won't have those nails flying when you mow your lawn." I have said this so many times it is second nature, and it is true. It requires 10 minutes to CWOP the file. If I find damage then I feel good about that. The people probably needed a roof. (As I do now- 50 sq. 360lb. thank God for this storm, now I can afford it.) I once worked a large storm through central Tx for LM out of San Antonio for 5 months. When I finished and went into SA the mgr asked me how I could run as many claims as I did, found no damage on 90% of them and did not have one complaint, Ins co. or homeowner? I just do what my conscience tells me is right. Granule loss is not a reason to pay a hail claim unless it damages the shingles. Finding hail damage is not a guessing game, either it is there or it is not there.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 11/09/2003 14:14:53
Message:
While in theory I agree with you, it isn't always black and white. If it were that easy there would be no stress in this job at all. Haven't you ever been on a black fiberglass roof where the vents have huge dents in them and you've paid for every other roof in the neighborhood but the damage is difficult or nearly impossible to find? Or what about a roof that there are no vents on in the same neighborhood but the granules are so loose that there are bald spots everywhere. That may have been caused by hail, but the roof could have very well looked like this before the storm too. It just isn't always that simple. You quite often have to make a judgement call.
On the other hand, have you ever been on a roof that has old hail damage and a prior claim. You pull the old claim and that roof was paid for 10 years ago and never replaced. It has managed to survive without a leak and all this hail damage on it. It is now 20 years old and still not leaking. It always amazes me that a roof that we thought was totaled has managed to live out it's useful life and serve it's intended purpose even with the disadvantage of being "damaged" by hail. After seeing all of this, if I was paid for hail damage on my own roof I think I would just put the money in the bank and wait until the roof "needs" to be replaced. If I plan to sell the house in 5 years I'd rather wait and replace it when I put it on the market than try to sell it later with a 5 yr old roof.
Reply author: SeizeOWisdom
Replied on: 11/09/2003 14:18:54
Message:
Kile, what about those roofs where the vents were not replaced when the roof was last covered and the vent hail damage was from a prior hailstorm? It happens you know.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 11/09/2003 14:21:00
Message:
Yep, I know it does, that just makes our job all the less black and white. Once again, it quite often comes down to a judgement call.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every roof is a head scratcher. I'd say 95% of them are yes or no. It's the 5% that keep you up at night.
Reply author: trader
Replied on: 11/09/2003 20:29:46
Message:
Charcoal (black) is very hard to find damage, it is hit you just cant see it, get on the light colored house on each side and you will convince yourself. If the shingles were not sealed you could feel the bruise from the bottom side. I just tell them my camera will not show the hits, and I cant total and my estimate will reflect this... keep it several years for evidence. Hagg say,s 33% of the weight of the shingle is in the crushed slate spayed on to give the shingle a color that has eye appeal. Now if you have 3 inches in a coffee can from the front slope in the gutters and the front slope is 15 sqs, this does not equate to "hail damage" Crushed slate loss is a salesmans pitch. Try feeling with your thumb and index finger. Old hail is easy to spot its grey and has several years of red dust in most parts. Don,t send any hail loss to me that you camara will not show the hits. Walk around the house and look for splatter marks on the old oxidize paint on the AC and meter box etc. Its easy to see really no mystery at all.
Reply author: KileAnderson
Replied on: 11/09/2003 21:25:55
Message:
Trader, if your barometer is a picture of a hit, then I can pay for just about any roof I get on. It isn't hard to take a polaroid that "looks" like hail damage. The hard part is getting what is actually hail damage to show up on a polaroid.
CatAdjuster.org Forum Archives : http://www.catadjuster.org/forum2/
© 2000-04 CatAdjuster.org - Adjuster to Adjuster