| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2003 : 17:28:54
|
Kile, although there may be some planned obsolesence in the manufacture of asphalt shingles, I don't think we will find a manufacturer that would tell us that one of the three essential components of an asphalt shingle; is designed to shed itself at a periodic rate.
Notwithstanding that, I think your reliance (in your 12.31 post) on the "wear and tear ...." exclusion; is incorrect. As has been discussed in this forum previously, insurance is intended to pay for losses that are accidental and not those which are inevitable or arise naturally out of ordinary or reasonable use or ownership of property. The exclusions you refer to are meant to be 'maintenance' type exclusions; to avoid the insurance policy (a contract of idemnity) from becoming a 'warranty' policy.
Further, the HO3 insures against direct loss. A direct loss is the loss of economic value that occurs when property is destroyed or damaged. Again, I cann't see a successful argument being made that a hail storm did not cause damage to the asphalt shingles; when there is a pile of granulation resulting, at the bottom of each downspout.
If one looks to the proximate cause, of the loss of granulation following a hail storm; it should be a quick exercise. Conversely, granulation deposits found at other times, from some of the situations you describe; could not find their way back to a direct loss that would be covered.
This concept of a "wearable surface", is that an invention of the insurance industry, or does it have a definition and applicability in a written Standards relating to construction; specific to roof covering?
In summary, I think you have a cause - hail, which strikes the asphalt shingle roof covering, causing a quantity of an essential component of a shingle to separate from it - resulting in direct damage. I'm still not satisfied anyone has advanced a supportable position - within the policy language - that this is not a covered loss.
Kile, your trip to the claims office, for the wear and tear on your tires, would be unjustified; due to the named perils involved, which has no relationship to this situation. |
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 18:37:09
|
Clayton, of course shingles are a wearable surface, other wise, why would we replace them every 20-30years? They are meant to protect the wood underneath from the ravages of the elements. They are no different than the soles of your shoes or the seat of your pants. They are designed to absorb the friction and impact of the environment in which we live, which is what we call weather. Be it wind, rain, or even hail, a roof sheds granules constantly. The definition of wearable surface you asked about comes from common sense. A wearable surface is one that eventually wears out and needs to be replaced. That's pretty simple.
I spoke with a rep from Certainteed when we had an insured make a hail claim that turned out to be deffective shingles, not hail damage. He told me that the shingles are designed to loose 2-4% of their granules every year. That mean a 25 year roof can be expected to lose between 50%-100% of it's granules in 25 years.
Under your theory, if I clean out my gutters and downspouts and the next day there is a heavy rain and afterwards I notice an accumulation of granules then I must have a claim because my roof has been damaged due to accidental direct physical loss. Heavy rain being the cause and loss of granules he direct physical loss.
But I don't look at the loss of granules as being a direct physical loss because that's what they are there for. The loss of granules is not accidental. It is normal and happens everyday. |
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 07:50:27
|
Kile
I am the type of PA that uses the policy language to determine if the adjuster has applied "rule of thumb or an insurer oriented source to determine entiltements of the insured." Clayton has explained the issues of coverage very well. It is very likely that Mr. Carr's analysis of the claim damage issue will cause him to agree that the granule loss caused by hail may require that any shingle that has suffered such a loss is a replaceable shingle under the policy terms. If you can separate the missing wear and tear granules from the hail caused missing granules then glue them back on. In the example you gave you indicate loss caused by small hail and then apply an exclusion for wear and tear.
****
Since shingles are designed to shed granules and they do so at a varying rate dependent upon weather patterns, (less in a dry year, more in a wet year)granular loss from small hail is not covered because it is simply normal wear and tear to a wearable surface.
*****
One could surmise that granular loss from large hail would be covered or that the diameter of the hail is controlling the coverage. Will we have to rely on Haag to provide a determination of hail size that will allow an insured to be compensated. I am sure that they will include a formula for time vs size to allow for the policy to provide coverage. Ten minutes of 1/4" hail or five minutes of 1/2" hail.
The above examples are the type of doublespeak that a public adjuster could rely on to become involved in a hail loss that is not a hail loss but a wear and tear loss that happened because of hail.
From your recent post
***"Since shingles are designed to shed granules and they do so at a varying rate dependent upon weather patterns, (less in a dry year, more in a wet year)granular loss from small hail is not covered because it is simply normal wear and tear to a wearable surface.
*****
I note another possible flaw in your logic as noted herein "
*****
I spoke with a rep from Certainteed when we had an insured make a hail claim that turned out to be deffective shingles, not hail damage. He told me that the shingles are designed to loose 2-4% of their granules every year. That mean a 25 year roof can be expected to lose between 50%-100% of it's granules in 25 years."
****
If the granule loss is anticipated to be 2-4% per year on a 25 year roof and the day after a "small hail hit" the accumulation in the gutters appears to be twice normal then the 8% loss has reduced the normal wear and tear life expectancy of the roof by one year. In the year 2027 the insured will have to replace his roof instead of waiting until 2028. Should he then give his adjuster a call and ask him to please come address the issue of the lost year of roof protection. It appears that the Certanteed man has confirmed that in any year that the roof has a granule loss greater than 2-4% the life expectancy has diminished or something has caused a direct physical loss to covered property.
My issue in this matter is confined to "rules of thumbs and undefined industry standards and what happes at my house" that are applied to a written contract. These are the issues that I run around creating extra work for adjuster. I seldom become involved in hail losses due to the low return on the billing schedule. Some of the adjusting methods used extend into other types of losses and coverages and it is worthwhile to participate.
These are my thoughts I could be found to be wrong by other experts in this forum and I hang out here for the education that is provided in these type of exchanges. My purpose in participating in these exchanges are to have my views examined for flaws and errors. I admire your willingness and the others that participate at CADO to share knowledge and would never wish to discourage anyone from posting with personal attacks from the dark side.
William S Cook
P.S. Mr Rugg
It wasn't I who needed a copy of the Haag info, that information should be provided to each insured as it is being used as an industry standard to determine an insured's entitlements. It is good that you opine that any granule loss greater than "moderate" may give rise to coverage and ultimatly replacement of the granules. If you are sincere I would like a copy of the Haag book as I have never attended their classes. In the alternative I will be gald to pay for a copy of "INSURANCE INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR 2003" or a source that has these standard listed in order avoid conflict with adjusters that may be using an older or outdated version of these standards.
|
Edited by - william s cook on 03/11/2003 08:31:37 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 08:22:42
|
First of all, let me say, that I understand what Clayton and Bill are saying, and I agree with them regarding causation and coverage, based on a review of the policy as so beautifully analyzed and outlined by Clayton.
I don't think Clayton is saying that a roof should be replaced simply because there is some extra granular loss, but what I hear both he and Bill suggesting, is that there has been a diminuation in value. And in that I concur as well.
Clayton further suggests that the dilemma for the adjuster, the carrier, and even the insured is measuring the economic value of that diminuation.
In the not so distant past, adjusters were allowed to recommend or pay an 'allowance' for that diminuation, which I have long believed was an excellent tool for claims settlement, although not one without it's own set of underlying problems.
This past summer, in three contested hail claims almost precisely 'on point' to the scenario here, three separate independent adjusters (all senior adjusters possessed of vast knowledge and experience) representing three different carriers here in the Greensboro area did in fact do just that; recommend an allowance for diminuation of value from granular loss, and in all three situations, the claims were paid by three separate carriers for a diminuation of value from granular loss.
I think Kile and others are perhaps not wanting to introduce any complexity into what is generally a simple process in hail storm adjusting.
To me, the absence of observable visual damage to the shingle combined with the absence of any granular loss, would be the threshold to conclude there was no hail damage to the roof system nor diminuation in value to the roof system of an insured property.
And what Bill, Clayton and I are saying is this, even if the insurer doesn't owe a full replacement of the roofing shingles from granular loss, the insured has still suffered a diminuation of useful life and thus economic value, to their shingles from a hail storm event. And for that, the insured is entitled to indemnification for their loss sustained.
|
Edited by - JimF on 03/11/2003 08:43:32 |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 08:39:51
|
As an aside, I could not wish for an insured to have a better Public Adjuster than Bill Cook, and have come to know Bill as reasonable, knowledgeable, logical, ethical and fair.
While it likely never will happen, to have Bill representing 'the other side' of one of my claims would be a pleasure as well as making my job easier.
Public adjusters are like agents, they can be our best friends or our worst nightmares. The good ones are a pleasure to work with and Bill Cook is one of the great ones! |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 08:42:08
|
Bill, I stipulated small hail in my answer because large hail would do damage to the matting of the shingle and the granular loss would not be an issue.
If the roof lost 8% the entire year of that "small" hail event and then it lost only 2% the following 2 years the 3 year average would be 4%, in the manufacturers specs of 2-4% per year. Normal wear and tear is not covered. Going by your logic, a roof should be repaired or replaced every time the wind blows or rain falls.
I can tell you right away that if a PA told me he wanted to be paid for granular loss and there was no evidence of hail damage I would not listen to another word he had to say because he I would immediately know that he is a sheister and simply looking to screw the insurance company. Probably to make up for the fact that after he takes his cut of an honest claim, the insured no longer has enough money to fix his house. I don't think I could get my house fixed for 30% less than the amount it should actually cost. |
Edited by - TomToll on 03/12/2003 10:11:41 |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 08:55:00
|
Kile it is called DIMINUATION OF VALUE and I agree with Bill Cook, so put Clayton and I along with Bill on your shyster list and the list for what is wrong with this country and this industry. I can't think of better company in association.
If you will take time to read my first post of this morning, you will discover that diminuation in value is not only an economic loss but an insurable loss as well. And while you might not listen to another word Bill Cook or Clayton or I had to say when this was called to your attention at our personal loss, rest assured the carrier managers and State Insurance Commissioner would.
And in the end, insureds would be paid for that diminuation of loss whether you liked it or agreed with it or not!
Get rid of the rather closed minded attitude which only blinds you to understanding and applying new ideas and valuation concepts to the adjustment of real losses with real insureds. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/11/2003 09:09:08 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 09:19:01
|
No, Jim, I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. I don't call in diminuation of value, I call it amortization, depreciation, whatever you want to call it. Just about everything deminishes in value everyday. If you take his theory of yours and Clayton's and Bill's to it's logical conclusion, why don't we have a huge influx of claims everytime it rains? More granules are lost in a heavy rain than on a sunny day. Why is this limited specifically to hail?
I'll tell you why. Because after a hail storm, there is a feeding frenzy of roofers and PA's and yes even IA's. Everyone out there is looking to make a buck, myself included. The problem is, I have morals and ethics, and those two damn things won't allow me to make a living in a dishonest way. I'd love it if the carriers said "go ahead and give everyone with granular loss 25% of their roof value. In most cases that wouldn't exceed the deductible, but it would create a hell of alot more claims, easy ones too.
The problem is, granular loss ISN'T DAMAGE, it is the normal wearing process of the product. Some years you will get 8% of the wear, other years you will get 2%. Granular loss from small hail (because large hail will do real damage to the shingles therefore making this argument moot) is simply par for the course.
I do not have a closed mind, Jim, I have a dicerning mind and I filter out the BS, which is exactly what this is. Keeping an open mind doesn't mean you accept every crackpot theory that comes along, it just means you listen to it and when you realize that it's just smoke and mirrors you discard it.
Now that I have answered your questions, would someone please answer 2 of my questions.
1. Why don't PA's encourage people to file claims for granular loss from heavy rains?
2. How do PA's sleep at night knowing that they have taken their pound of flesh from the insured and now the insured no longer has enough to fix their house? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 09:50:35
|
Kile, I'm disgusted and angered with your abusive tone you have now brought to this thread. We may disagree with each other on the technical issue, and that is fine; but why with a topic like this must you take personal attacks at people? That type of action does nothing to support or reinforce your technical opinion.
You started your abusive tone with your 3/10 reply to Bill Cook, followed by an unjustified closing paragraph in your 3/11 08.42 post and again in your 09.19 post.
Further, you now paint the entire thread as "BS" and a "crackpot theory". I personally do not like to be associated with, more made to be associated with that type of thing.
Very disappointing Kile! You have a good ability to articulate your opinions clearly without resorting to that type of thing. You do not have to lower yourself and abuse others, to express your views.
This is the first meaningful technical discussion on this web site in some time. It is a subject that disagreement would be expected, as was stated in the opening post. It has now gone to hell, with your abusive attacks. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 10:10:58
|
| But you still haven't answered my questions. |
|
|
|
ShermaninCO
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 10:11:14
|
Clayton, I agree this is a controverial subject and there is no need for personel attacks.
Kile, I agree with you, at least in part, I know how much granular loss I see here at home after a heavy rain and don't see a noticable difference after a small hail storm. I still believe that the granular loss would be there if there was hail or just heavy rain. And, is only noticed by insured due to the hail.
Therefore, how do you determine a diminshed value for a roof after a small hail storm? What position is used by most insurance carriers? |
Bill Sherman
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 10:12:57
|
Clayton, I share your anger, disgust and disappointment with the tone which has been brought to what is otherwise an excellent technical discussion on this thread.
One of the primary reasons that insureds hire and engage Public Adjusters is because of the hard headed close minded attitude witnessed here on the part of some adjusters; adjusters unwilling or unable to understand concepts and aspects of loss which may differ from their own personal, limited, and encapsulated insular dogmas.
Good public adjusters have the knowledge, experience and skills to protect their insureds from adjusters unwilling to listen and to apply policy coverage provisions correctly in the adjustment of claims. And they certainly know how to move past those adjusters who would throw up obstacles to indemnification guaranteed under the insurance contract. And in the end, it is the adjuster and not the public adjuster who is left with the black eye and censure by the carriers, insureds and insurance commissioners in the various states.
Kile, I generally appreciate your postings, even when I disagree with them, but this time you have well overstepped the bounds of decency, and I for one, feel you owe at least an apology to Bill Cook for your reckless and unfounded personal attacks. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 10:35:04
|
| Kile, your 3/11 10.10 post, is a silly response, to your noted behavior. I have no further wish to respond to any of your questions, at this time. |
|
|
|
rugg
Canada
14 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 11:00:45
|
How is everyone this fine wintery morning. I see that once again the discussion has turned and gone straight down hill. Let us try to stay on the topic and not hurl abuses towards each other. Thanks
Anyway CCarr - what the! [:D] To answer your questions:
(1) Yes
(2) On the shingles a Puncture or a bruise.
(3) Moderate - to keep within bounds; not extreme; limited; these are three definitions of moderate. Of course we have not determined an actual amount of granule loss for this scenario.
As per your scenario concerning the insured with the contract of a new roof a few months old.
" Does hail cause granule loss? Yes, but it is highly unlikely that hailstone impacts cause significant granule loss. Our 15-year study showed that impacts with simulated hailstones which dislodged granules but did not expose asphalt at the moment of impact ( or rupture reinforcements) did not affect the expected service life of the material and, therefore,were not functional damage."
So as to not ramble on and continue to repeat the same tired old sayings, the result is negligible loss of life.
neg-li-gi-ble may be disregarded because small, trifling, or unimportant.
HAAG Engeineering Co.
Asphalt Composition Shingle Roofing Pictorial
(Fifth Edition)2.1.13
2.4 " Asphalt composition shingles are damaged by impacts when they are punctured and when the reinforcements are fractured ( sometimes referred to as "bruised" ). Once a shingle has been bruised, a progressive deterioration ensues and culminates with a hole in the shingle. A puncture affects the water-shedding capability immediately, and a bruise reduces the long-term serviceability of a roof. Both conditions, therefore, constitute damage."
HAAG Engineering
Sorry for the long post!
Clayton I await your response.
Have a great day
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
