| Author |
 Topic  |
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
 Posted - 03/21/2003 : 20:28:41
|
There is an established amount of granule weight applied to the mat in the final shingle making process. The "supposed" retained weight is a known factor to the manufacturer. This information is redily available.
So, if the "supposed weight" of the retained granules on the finished product is say 200# per SQ, and the shingle is supposed to loose 2-4 % PER ANUM by natural causes, then any loss over and above that published percentage may be a case for a DV claim.
The roof is 5 years old, the normal loss average is 3% per year or a total of 15% OF 200# or 30# per SQ.
SO, if we weigh the shingle and if the weight loss is calculated at 60# per SQ then we have a 50% DV claim?
Or, can we request the manufactures to come up with a methodology that will be acceptable to all parties, that will stand up in court?
Do we need a standard?
There are always two sides to a fence, and we have the repsonsiblity to view both sides and make an informed decision. This can only be done by having the proper substanciated information.
Of course this may not apply to all types of shingles, especially the laminated ones, or the Super heavy weights, or specialty applications, or maybe "T"locks.
Some one please come up with an easy, correct, and viable annser.
What fun........................................
|
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2003 : 21:58:38
|
Dave, using your math and applied logic, which I do think has merit; the DV loss would be 15%, and not 50%.
Using your example, you took a product whose age (without prior incident), carried an average accumulated granule loss of 30 pounds, or 15%. Then, you applied an 'event', which after your "weight test", provided a net loss of 60 pounds, or 30%; which is a 50% increase, but only a 15% DV.
Now that the 'dust' has settled in this thread a bit, I might add that I have heard of insurers up here exploring with technical vendors, in regards to some type of calibration system for claimed as damaged composite asphalt shingles. I don't know to what extent that study is at, other than being told it's a fairly new project. It has similarities to ITEL testing of carpet, though the results are being oriented towards calibrating extent of damage; through non-destructive analysis.
Do we need a standard? Yes we do.
If and when a standard is created, that has credibility, I'm sure at first it will be limited to the most common types of CAS; to capture the volume applications. |
|
|
|
Manmut
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 09:03:45
|
Actually, before we end the discussion on Diminished Value, I'd like to raise some coverage issues. A challenge went up to quote court cases, so I did some research on the PLRB website in response. It seems that Diminished Value is not necessarily considered covered by the courts. In California, the courts have ruled that diminution of value is not an insurable peril, but rather a measure of loss. In Hoffman v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. the appellate court ruled:
"The original claim for diminution of value because of the
property's location in a landslide area was without merit. Property
insurance covers losses caused by covered perils, which are
"fortuitous, active, physical forces such as lightening [sic],
wind, and explosion, which bring about the loss." 19 Cal. Rptr 2d
at 812 (quoting Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 P.2d 704
(1989) [reviewed at PLRB, Prop. Ins. L. Rev. 3084 (1989)]).
Diminution in market value is not only not a covered peril, but is
illegal in California per Ins. Code, sec. 12660."
In State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Superior Court (Aegea), the appellate court made a sharp distinction between diminution of value in liability claims and property claims. It confirmed that the 'cause' of loss in a property insurance contract is totally different from that in a liability policy. Liability policies, the court said, determine whether there was an occurrence for which an insured was liable. Property policies determine whether there was a covered peril. Finally, the court observed that "'diminution in market
value' is not a 'peril' at all; it is a method of measuring damages."
|
Patrick W. Laws |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 09:10:40
|
Pat, I don't think that anywhere in this thread, that DV was ever considered as an insurable peril.
The context of the evolution of DV in this thread, was as a measure of loss; as a result of damage from an insurable peril (hail). |
|
|
|
Manmut
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 12:36:54
|
Ah, my mistake. Still, it is instructive to see how the courts have addressed the issue of diminished value, even though such rulings are limited to the scope of excluded losses.
I accept that excessive granule loss resulting from hail is a covered loss. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that the insured must prove that the granule loss is, indeed, excessive. Additionally, the insured must prove that the excessive granule loss is a result of the hail storm. Finally, the insured must prove that the granules they are showing me in the gutter are there as a result of the hail storm, and not normal build up from normal wear and tear.
I think that if the insured was able to prove that the hail storm caused excessive granule loss that decreased the life expectancy of the shingles, I would be willing to pay for the loss. I can see hail hits and differentiate them from normal wear and tear (as well as ball-pean hammer hits), however, I cannot differentiate between granules that have gotten into the gutters from hail storms and those that have gotten there as a result of rain storms. The issue becomes especially clouded if you can't get to the roof for several days or even weeks following a hail storm. How much granule loss has occurred in that time that is normal?
Again, I agree that it is a covered loss, but adjusting such a loss is tricky at best. The onus falls on the insured, not the adjuster. to prove their loss. It brings to mind situations where the insured has to hire an engineer to prove to the insurance company that a house is structurally unsound. While it inevitably engenders hard feelings from the insured, it is well within the insurer's perogative to expect the insured to obtain such a report before extending coverage. |
Patrick W. Laws |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 13:25:31
|
Pat, in your acceptance of the principal advanced concerning DV, you then say that;
(a) "the insured must prove that a granule loss is excessive"
(b)"the insured must prove that the excessive granule loss is a result of hail"
What you are saying there, if the policy was interpreted and exercised to its exact intent; is true. However, why wouldn't, in reality, those determinations be made by the assigned adjuster; no different than currently happens thousands of times a year for wind or hail losses to whatever kind of property?
Very seldom in today's claim world, does an insured have to 'prove' anything; especially with weather related claims. It is the common practice of insurance consumers to phone and report a weather related claim, even without having any idea if in fact actual damage exists to their covered property, or what property is covered, or for what it is covered for. Adjusters for years, have gladly accepted these assignments, and gone about their business to determine if there is any damage, and whether that damage is to covered property; and by a covered peril.
I suggest, that when DV becomes an acceptable component of property loss, that there will be "tools" and guides for adjusters to utilize; for their determination of any and all points you suggest an insured would have to prove. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 13:26:37
|
The point is not how many granules are in the gutters but the amount of granules missing from the shingle. The former may be indicative of the latter, but the question of DV centers on the latter.
I do think that Dave Hood is approaching the real problem by concentrating the emphasis on testing and laboratory analysis of the shingle to determine granular loss and that Clayton Carr is correctly approaching some processing under such DM loss and value by suggesting the adoption of some accepted determinative standard for measurement of loss and value. |
Edited by - JimF on 03/24/2003 13:32:15 |
|
|
|
Manmut
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 14:08:10
|
Clayton,
I agree that the adjuster has a responsibility to scope the loss and make a coverage determination. I don't see, however, how an adjuster can determine that a roof has experienced excessive granular loss as a result of a hail storm without knowing the pre-storm condition of the roof shingles or knowing the average amount of granular loss the roof normally experiences.
All I'm suggesting is that, short of some pretty convincing evidence, I'd be forced to deny any claim for granular loss until the insured could prove otherwise. Now, if the insured shows me that the roof is relatively new, and the granular loss is fairly substantial, I'd be happy to pay the claim. I would guess that on a majority of such claims, excessive granular loss due to the covered hail storm, would be a difficult, if not impossible, thing to determine. To me the key is proving that the hail storm caused the excessive granular loss, which would have to involve ruling out all other possible causes, including rain or wind.
I guess all I'm trying to do is find the "accepted determinative standard for measurement of loss and value" that JimF has referenced in his recent post. Beyond having something like that available, and barring an incredibly obvious loss, I don't know how an adjuster could be expected to make a positive coverage determination on such a loss. Laboratory analysis can prove that there is excessive granular loss on the shingle, but can it prove the cause of that loss? |
Patrick W. Laws |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 16:23:57
|
Pat, I fully agree, that at this point in time, the DV issue in regards to property claims; is truly a 'stump the chump' type of problem.
However,
(1) When "tools" and / or an analysis method is available and credible, to consider an asphalt shingle; along the lines of the testing I mentioned in an earlier post
(2) When DV has a defined and credible method and standard to measure its loss, in property claims; specifically for asphalt shingles
(3) When DV is an accepted component of property claims;
it will be a 'new world' in the continuing saga of the adjustment of property claims.
I'm not sure of the exact age, but the concept of "replacement cost coverage", was an equal 'demon' to insurers, when it was being discussed and argued whether or not it should be added to a policy wording. I think that it was only 30 some years ago.
Also, think back about the advent of vinyl siding, and all those that were negative about it ever replacing aluminium siding; that's less than 30 years ago.
Also, look at the "tools" we now have to work with as adjusters. I don't recall any computer estimating programs even 20 years ago.
Also, the Haag data was not as sophisticated, detailed or as credible; 15 years ago.
Also, the function and service ITEL provides, I don't think was around 10 years ago.
There is change going on all around us, that affects the adjustment of claims; the next "tool" or analytical method is not far away. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2003 : 20:12:41
|
| First we have itel. Now we can have r-tel. A bunch of us should get together and sell big red the good hands and FIG on the idea and have them courier shingles to us, we'll identify and weigh them and send a report for $50. Should be able to make money. |
|
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2003 : 11:01:50
|
| We can do better than that, if I'm not mistaken ITEL was charging about $100 bucks per report. |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2003 : 13:32:56
|
The presence of granules in a gutter, may or may not be indicative of excessive loss due to a covered peril, (i.e. Hail).
The way the gutter is installed has much to reveal about the occurance.
IF the gutter is installed properly, and is sloped about 1/4 inch per foot in any direction, then the "normal" granual loss from wind, rain, will be washed out of the gutter, leaving it clean.
IF, when inspected this is the case and you have an excessive amount of granules accumulated, you can be comfortable in determining that this excessive loss is due to the recent occurance.
When the gutters are installed level, and not pitched, all of the granules will not be washed out and you can find as much as 1 inch or more of accumulation. This is not a true indication of the amount of loss.
It is necessary to put a level on the gutter to see if it is, indeed, pitched, this is adviseable if you are going to consider the loss as a reason for repair or replacement.
One of the first steps in the new R-Tec is going to be the inquiry of all of the shingle manufactures as to their expected "loss per anum percentage". This information, when compliled and digested will provide a benchmark for the expected acceptable loss of weight.
Remember that "ALL" of the granules are not ever going to be lost. There are opinions that vary, but for the most part, the shingle will never loose more that 50% of the total applied weight over the life of the product.
Another consideration in the examination is the loosening of the granules from the impact to the mat, but not necessarily the removal due to the impact. The granules will be removed easier by a heavy rainfall, if they are loose.
We have yet to approach a DV claim as a normal occurance , but it will raise its head, one day.
Either the roof is damaged or it is not, Why do we have differing amounts of "hits per SQ" necessary to replace a roof. Which of the carriers wants 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 or 12? These are standards that have been set, but based on what scientific measurement?
IMHO, the whole approach to roof damage and the policy requirement to restore the risk to the pre-loss condition needs an overhaul.
[^][^][^] |
Edited by - katadj on 03/25/2003 13:36:04 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2003 : 18:53:56
|
It seems that with all the different standards and statutes on roofing, its a wonder any one can be sure they wouldn't get a kickback on every one, especially on one with partial damage. Loss of granuals starts happening when the roof is being installed. The trafic and handling also takes a toll. If the roof makes a bad picture it may still be good, and if its a good picture it could still be a bad roof. I agree with KATADJ it needs an overhaul and some specifics spelled out in the policy, with standards. The adjuster is expected to do a job that is not spelled out, other than hits etc.
As it stands, the insured expects a new roof if he has any damage, and a good lawyer will get it. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2003 : 21:04:41
|
Newt, am I drunk or am I seeing the same post twice from you?
I agree with Katadj that someone will take a stab at this issue some time in the future. The court case from California shows that this is not a new idea and the decisions in that case will be referenced in the future also.
Without any standards or research on the subject, it will all be smoke and mirrors but ya never know. Stranger things have happened. The factors involved are endless and some impossible to determine. Who knows, 30 years from now, an insured can mail in an envelope full of granules and we'll put them a check in the mail. |
|
|
|
inside man
45 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 07:57:43
|
The way an IA performs his job is spelled out by the carrier since ultimately they hold the check book.
The carrier that I primarily work for will not pay for granular loss and will not pay dimished value claims on roof. The shingles themselves must have hail damage to them ie: impacts and/or bruising. The insured is paid the appropriate dollar to repair the roof, replace specific slopes or to replace the whole roof (if over 50% of the roof area is being replaced then the carrier will pay for a full roof)
As long as the carrier's instructions are ethical and remain within a tolerable level of you own personal beliefs of proper claims handling I would suggest you keep your mouth shut and do what you are told. Let's remember who is signing your paycheck.
Adjuster's who stand around the CAT office and try to change the site manager's opinions regarding such a grey area as granular loss will be packing up and going home early. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
