| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2003 : 22:42:04
|
| CD, before you rush out to take a class in the coming dimunition in value approach, you might be better served to acquaint yourself with the already accepted broad evidence rules accepted and expected in the court system, which will serve you well later in better understanding dimunition of value. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/12/2003 01:26:08 |
 |
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 22:53:25
|
How can you make a claim for a dimunition of value of which you cannot determine?
It sleeps 6 and so does a Winnebago. Use that residual.
"Magic 8 ball, how much is his roof worth now?"
Let me know when you right that first check!
Sweet dreams! |
|
|
|
Fireman4528
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:07:45
|
I recently attended the HAAG class entitled " Composition And Wood Roofs Damage Assessment " (very good class). It was taught that on a typical composition roof (20/25yr and 200-300lbs per SQ.), approximately 80lbs of the weight is granules. It was also taught that 20% of these granules are referred to as " hitchhiker " granules, meaning extra. That is 16lbs per SQ. These extra hitchhiker granules are placed on the shingle knowingly, by the manufacturers due to the granular loss sustained during shipping and installation.
I believe that some of the granules found in the gutters are from just that, installation. This is not going hold true in all cases but, in some, the first storm big enough to bring these granules out of the gutter and down the downspout just so happened to be the one that contained small hail. Thus the claim being filed. Has anyone worked a claim that was filed when the insured looked into his gutter after a new roof was installed?
Also I bet that if it were a fairly new roof, and it was possible to catch, or gather all the granules that have been lost from the roof, and weighed, It would not reach the 16lbs per SQ that are expected to be lost by the manufacturer. Remember this is without any concideration for loss of ganules from any type of wear and tear. That has not even been addressed in my post.
As far as coverage goes, I think we need to determine whether or not there is damage, before we can address whether or not there is coverage for it.
Just my 2 cents. Be kind. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:09:25
|
Oh come on Cat Daddy, you know we'll arrive at a determination of value for dimunition of value under the insurance policy in the exact same way we now do in property claims and under most liability claims, as precisely and subjectively as we possibly can.
Valuation appraisal is an art and not a science. |
|
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:10:12
|
I think the phrase is 'direct physical damage'. I use the following formula. I've had zero arguments.
How much granules did you find in the gutters and / or on the ground? Would you say a five pound sugar sack full? Maybe two sugar sacks?
A square of 20 year three-tab weighs approximately 210 pounds. 1/3 or 70 pounds is the chat or granules. Let's say your roof is 20 squares. The granules on your roof represent 1,400 pounds. A 20 year roof looses about 5% of its granules every year. 5% of 1,400 pounds is 70 pounds. Did you find 70 pounds of granules?
Of course you can amend this to any type of shingle. It helps eliminate the discussion of the unknown. (You can't prove to me that the granule loss didn't effect the age of my roof!). That question is never raised when I take the bull by the horns.
Saying that. Granule loss when found in additon to collateral damage (especially some hail bruising)helps settle the issue to total the roof. Excessive garnule loss sometimes makes the repairing of the roof very difficult if not impossible.
So, I look for help to substaniate my recommendation, but never on granule loss alone. |
Don
"To be held in the heart of a friend is to be a king."
Bruce Cockburn |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:11:36
|
| But the question remains, how do you reconcile your diminution of value from hail with DV from heavy rain. In the summer of 2001 TS Alison dumped more than 20" of rain from houston to New Orleans. That amount of rain, over a 48 hour period and in many areas much more than 20", would have to move more granules than an average spring rain or even a 2 minute pea sized hail event. Are you saying that everyone who experienced this rain on their roofs now is entitled to payment for DV? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:17:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by KileAnderson
Are you saying that everyone who experienced this rain on their roofs now is entitled to payment for DV?
In answer to your question: No, I am not saying that at all and never have said that.
And honestly, I don't see or know where or how you arrived at such a conclusion? |
Edited by - JimF on 03/11/2003 23:22:33 |
|
|
|
Dadx9
USA
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:24:34
|
| Easy Big Fella. :-) |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:37:37
|
Jim,
You said and I quote:
"Dimunition of value is already an accepted concept in insurance and real property law, and we suggest that you will within the next few years discover that it is one of the new frontiers of valuation and litigation which adjusters and carriers will be wrestling with and adjusters should ignore the concepts at their own peril."
So, follow me if you will.
Hail causes accelerated granule loss, accelerated granule loss leads to early failure of roof so roof has been diminished in value. You seem to believe that this will in the near future be an area of litigation. Well, if it's good for hail, why isn't it good for rain?
Please tell me how that train of logic in incorrect and does not match what you are saying?
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2003 : 23:53:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by KileAnderson
Jim,
You said and I quote:
"Dimunition of value is already an accepted concept in insurance and real property law, and we suggest that you will within the next few years discover that it is one of the new frontiers of valuation and litigation which adjusters and carriers will be wrestling with and adjusters should ignore the concepts at their own peril."
Yes, Kile, I did say that and I stand by my comments posted.
The remainder of your post consists of words and illogical gobbledygook of your own making, born of either a deficiency of logic or extraneous leaps in logic, which I do not share, subscribe to nor embrace.
No where in my postings to this thread have I discussed rain nor granular loss from rain and I will not be drawn into such discussion. Any relevancy to hail damage scenarios escapes me.
For reasons unknown to me, you and others miss the points that Clayton, Bill and I are making in this discussion; and further, you refuse to give up on arriving at conclusions you would ascribe to us which we neither suggested nor implied.
I would suggest that the significant difference in how you see things versus how Bill, Clayton and I see things, centers on your singular obsession with granular loss as central to SOLELY discussing the cause/coverage/cost(damage) aspects of dimunition of value while Clayton, Bill and I simply see it (granular loss) as only ONE OF SEVERAL factors which adjusters should take into consideration in making an informed decision of whether to recommend payment or denial for damages.
Further, I am of the opinion that you and others do not accept the concept of dimunition of value which is already in fact a well established concept by the courts with regards to insurance contracts while Bill, Clayton and I embrace the acknowledged and accepted position of the courts. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/12/2003 00:10:34 |
|
|
|
Fireman4528
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:14:46
|
I have to agree with Kile about the heavy rain. If we are talking about an accelerated granule loss that leads to early failure of roofing matterials, Whether it be small hail or a heavy rain, Whats the differance?
We are talking about a storm event that shortens the life of the shingle. Why can you not see a simmilarity in the two? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:26:12
|
Well, you are right, I don't agree with the courts on DV, they have been wrong an many other issues but that is not the point here. I accept that if that is the way the courts have ruled that is the rule under which we will all live. If you don't believe the courts are sometimes wrong please refer to Plessy v. Ferguson.
This entire discussion is based on granular loss. That's the title of the thread and that is what we are talking about.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm simply trying to grasp what you are saying.
This is what I have so far.
You believe that hail hitting the surface of the shingle causes the granules to fall off. This I will grant you.
I further conclude that you believe, and I don't dispute, that a roof hit by hail, that doesn't damage the layers below the granules, but dislodges granules is less valuable the day after the storm than it was the day before the storm.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong to this point.
I think that we all agree that if we were called to a house and there is no evidence of hail damage to the shingles themselves, but there is a heavy accumulation of granules in the gutters and the downspouts, and nothing else, the house is in the middle of a hay field and no other houses are within 10 miles, none of us would pay a dime for hail damage to that roof. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now, you said that you believe that DV will be an issue for the courts in the next several years. On this I can agree with you. So far I think we are all in agreement.
Now, the problem comes in when the new can of worms is opened. Would you not agree that if the courts ruled that under the current HO policies granular loss due to hail is a covered DV loss claim under the current HO policy, then any granular loss, due to a loss not excluded, which would include 2 feet of rain in 48 hours, would therefore be covered, would it not? |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:36:40
|
Well, just for the experience I will highlight a few differences between rain and hail:
All shingles are designed and represented to be rain proof. Shingles are not designed nor represented to be hail 'proof' (hail resistant yes, but hail proof no).
Rain is not a covered cause of loss under named perils policy. Hail is.
Insurance companies load their premiums taking into consideration the statistical probablities for hail damage while rain is not singularly afforded such consideration (absent other concurrent causation factors). In other words, carriers anticipate and expect a certain percentage of indemnification losses from hail and not from rain absent other causation factors.
Granular loss from rain events is an expected part of the roof shingle life cycle. Loss from hail damage is not expected per se. Shingles manufacturers will warrant a 20 year life for a shingle with repeated rain exposure but will not warrant for any given life given varying degrees of hail exposure severity.
Again, granular loss alone (regardless of causation) is not "A" single factor or "ONE" single factor which determines dimunition of value, but only ONE OF SEVERAL factors which should be taken into consideration by the adjuster and carrier. And court decisions and case law is already quite clear in advocating that approach (the broad evidence rule) in making indemnification decisions.
While not an exhaustive explanation, this should suffice in a differentiation for purposes of the instant discussion. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:47:17
|
While your example is true for a named peril policy, I'm reading from a SF 7955 right now and it says:
Section I - Losses Insured
Coverage A - Dwelling
We insure for accidental direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage A except as provided in Section I - losses not insured.
I turn over to Section I - losses not insured. I find no exclusion for rain.
Therefore I conclude under THIS POLICY because of the aforementioned theoretical court ruling that granular loss constitutes a DV loss, then the loss from the heavy rain event I mentioned, which occurs about as often as small hail, would be a covered DV loss.
Where am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Fireman4528
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2003 : 00:50:57
|
Some insurers require that if an insured has a chimney, that it be cleaned professionally once per year. This is done to insure safety, limit the possibilities of a flue fire and related damages, and have an inspection done to know of any damages present before the next years burning season. This may be due to the one-year timetable given to file a claim. Anyway, sorry for temporarily leaving the subject. I'm getting back.
If the courts rule in such a way that insurers will have to pay DV claims from granular loss from a storm, does anyone think it may come the time that it will be required of the insured to get the gutters cleaned annually, or as far as that goes after each big storm so that the amount of damage from one particular storm can be assessed?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
