| Author |
 Topic  |
|
scott48
1 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2003 : 07:56:57
|
| What are the comparative prices between standard 20 year shingles and class 4 impact resistant shingles as found in Texas? Does the impact resistant shingle require more labor because of it's weight and is a re-roof required? |
|
|
bryan newell
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2003 : 21:49:12
|
| Material price is about 15-20 dollars higher per SQ, depending on the product. Atlas Storm Master is as bad a product as the Atlas Pinnacle. The OC product is nice looking, but Malarkey appears to be the best. No additional labor necessary, unless they are going for the wind rating, which requires 10 nails per shingle, not the standard 8. You can do an overlay. |
 |
|
|
JMooreKC
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 11:31:09
|
| since when is the standard 8 nails per shingle??? I have always used 4 nails, except on presidential which requires 6. If you are using 8-10 nail in anything no wonder there wont be any hail damage when the hail can only hit metal nail heads. |
|
|
|
cat man do
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 13:01:11
|
| You might think of each layer as you apply the nails to one on next corse when you nail it also applies to the corse under if you nail correct place on shingle |
|
|
|
bryan newell
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 15:13:14
|
| Thank you Cat Man. Glad to see the roofers read the literature that comes with the shingles |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 00:19:25
|
Disagree about the above grading of IR Class 4's.
O.C.'s shingle is simply thicker with more granules forced into the coating and with a thicker mat than conventional "30 year" dimensionals.
I find the "workability" of the Malarkey to be worse in some high heat conditions and better in cooler weather than the Atlas product. So it boils down to using a different product based on weather conditions.
The modifieds (Malarkey and Atlas) are more easily skuffed during installation and the O.C. uses no better an IR theory than "thicker is better". We know from built up roofs with thicker gravel than the O.C. granules, that the principle may work until the product ages and then it may fail more easily.
Bottom line - NONE have been tested on older shingles - ALL U.L. 2218 tests are performed on new products (un-aged) at present. Therefore long term UV effects and weathering have been left out of the mix. It would be nice to test chronologically-aged shingles so insurers could assess potential risk with more accuracy.
As of now, the discount is like the energizer bunny - it just keeps going and going and going and...
On a side note so as not to let insurance adjusters off any easier than roofers and manufacturers, the 8 - 10 nail per shingle statement tells any IDIOT why the new damage threshhold numbers for repairs will soon be overturned in court.
Besides fly by nights or corner cutters being the only ones willing to do those "repairs", because they have to cut corners, the fact remains that un-nailing 30 - 40 shingles per square to replace 10 (the new threshhold number) is IMPOSSIBLE to do as cheaply as stripping off an entire square which has less than 80 shingles!!!!!
What was Haag thinking? Or better question, who was thinking for them and who might have been telling what they wanted to hear?
And back to three tab IR's of EITHER the Malarkey or Atlas brands. DO NOT BUY WHITE! Oils migrating from the shingles dirty the surface and it sometimes takes 6-12
MONTHS for the color to keep from looking like dirty, worn out shingles. Makes it tough to get your money and neither company is decent at taking responsibility for the problem, usually claiming that the shingles were stacked too many pallets deep at the distributor's warehouse and the distributor screaming "manufacturer's problem".
Malarkey downright refused to make things right and Atlas gave a small credit to some very unhappy homeowners who picked out white roofs - even an experienced roofer would have sworn used shingles were used on both roofs.
Repeat - stay away from white!
BTW, I believe the five nail rule goes past the coastal wind rating areas and is necessary for warranty coverage inland.
|
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/27/2003 00:48:22 |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 04:37:31
|
Lon:
Once again I'm out of the loop. Can you tell me more about this threshhold number thing. I think for once I might be agreeing with you. If the roof is damaged by hail, just replace the thing and go on. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 08:52:38
|
Lon,
Have you noticed that with certain shingles, when they are about 5-8 years old they actually hold up better to hail than do newer or older shingles? It seems like after about 5 years they harden up and can withstand a good hail storm pretty well, but after about 8 or 10 they start to get brittle. This is just something that I have noticed. It is not a scientific study and could just be coincidental. |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 13:05:23
|
Kile and ALANJ,
First ALANJ(look farther down for your response, Kile) - the threshold number thing has to do with the number of hits per square companies are requiring to call a roof a total loss.
Quoting Haag studies and repair suggestions from a workbook or manual, I believe adjusters who lack real field/job/roofing experience are using arbitrarily chosen numbers based on those theories to make calls on whether a roof is a total loss or not. The theories lack time and material studies to back them up and I think Haag misses several key factors in developing repair difficulty factors. Theirs are primarily based on how pliable (a function of age) and how 'sealed" the shingles are and virtually nothing else goes into the mix other than the aforementioned age and the number of hits per square. Those books and manuals are already in the hands of many people who have used them to settle claims based on the information contained therein.
Case history: I am being consulted where an Allstate adjuster called a roof "repairable" so Allstate sent a "pet" contractor to assess the damage when the policyholder's roofer didn't agree. The "pet" contractor's estimator is a currently licensed insurance adjuster who sells roofing also.
The adjuster/roofing salesman was on the 25 square roof for less than 10 minutes according to the roofer who suggested me to the homeowner.
He states this because he looked at his watch when the policyholder called him as the adjuster/roofing salesman excused himself to climb the roof. Since the contractor and the policyholder had wanted the roofer present for that inspection, they were quite aware of the time factor. The roofer was nearby and supposedly arrived 9 minutes after the adjuster/roofing salesman excused himself to climb the roof, even though the policyholder had asked him to wait for the roofer.
When the roofer was driving up, the adjuster/roofing salesman was already carrying his ladder back to his vehicle.
From there the roofer inquired of the "pet" contractor's adjuster/roofing salesman as to how many hits per square the roof had. After stating that the entire roof needed only a spot repair in some areas (an exact agreement with what the original Allstate adjuster had said) and after some other supposedly unintelligible remarks from that adjuster/roofing salesman citing Haag theories, the roofer asked the adjuster/roofing salesman to re-climb the roof and mark the damage along with him.
When the roofer got on the roof, there were no test squares marked and he inquired as to how the damage had been quantified on a "contested roof" without marking some test squares.
The adjuster/roofing salesman agreed to do so with the roofer on the front of the home and marked about 6 places in the test square. The adjuster/roofing salesman then moved to another slope and was already through marking only three spots in that total test square when the policyholder's roofer had finished checking the first slope finding 7 additional bona fide hail hits with noticeable damage.
The adjuster/roofer came back to the test square and agreed he had missed those other spots and said he would total that slope. Okay.
They proceeded to the second test square where the roofer found 5 additional hail hits for a total of 8 in that test square. The adjuster/roofing salesman said that the damage from hail must be at 10 provable hail impact scars per square for the slope to be called a total loss - nevermind that the 12 year old shingles were unmatchable. There were 8 agreed hail hits in need of repair.
Allstate adjusters met the roofer back at the job and agreed with the "pet" contractor's adjuster/roofing salesman. They admitted to the roofer that the criteria for the threshhold number of hits had been changed from the FIVE hit guideline given to cat adjusters as late as last year to TEN hits per square for both staff and cat adjusters this year. It also seems that the staff adjusters have had the 10 hit threshhold for three years to the cat adjusters' one year.
Where Haag's repairability theory falls short is their absence of time and material studies on how long it takes to repair these high number of hit areas in relation to the labor and materials needed for total replacement.
It is my opinion that since they are not roofers and never havve been, they tend to over-simlify repairability theories. For instance, this "pet" contractor's adjuster/roofing salesman looked at the flexiblity of the shingles and the strength of the sealant strip as the only indicators. Getting the fasteners out of the shingles is much more of a judgement and experience call and needs to be considered along with other factors.
5 hits a square used to be sort of the standard until some of these "Johnny-come-lately" contractors figured they would try for the insurance roof repair market to gain favor with insurers.
This contractor told the roofer for the insured that felt was not required with shingle repairs. After a complaint was filed, Allstate wrote the Texas Department of Insurance that felt was not needed and further that time and material studies had been performed by their recommended contractors that made Allstate's repairability assertions valid.
Calls to those contractors' owners and general managers revealed no such studies had EVER been performed. They told ME they had merely agreed to the pricing structure and some even added that they woiuld lose money if the repairs were done in the manner suggested by the manufacturer which included felt.
So here, we have Allstate, as well as a few other companies, changing the number of hits THEY require for a roof to be declared a total loss and using a different figure than they used a few years back, an Allstate letter to the Texas Department of Insurance stating their contractors had done time and material studies on these repair techniques and threshholds and then we have conversations with those very same contractors that say otherwise.
We also have the owner of the company employing the adjuster/roofing salesman saying that "in the REAL world, 'nobody' does repairs like the manufacturer suggests."
At this point, the policyholder has turned the claim over to the Attorney General and is ready for options 2,3,4 or 5 if that one goes nowhere.
Kile, What a great post you made! While I am aware of no studies that back up the theory you propose there is substantial conjecture and opinion that your theory has merit. In fact I agree with it and support any adjuster's using that filter as a way to help him spot damage or deny it.
While I think the shingles strongest years vary with the climate, I agree in principle with the exact way you are thinking. Have you been reading my posts on roofing and consulting boards? LOL
My theory in a nutshell is that just as paint dries so do shingles in a slightly different way. As oxidation begins with both paint and asphalt, a skin developes. While latex paint may be dry to the touch in a few hours, we also know trying to sand it within that time frame creates a gooey mess.
The same is true with shingles only on a much more expansive time window. That window will vary depending on ambient air temperaure WHEN the sun is hitting that slope.
THIS is why I believe hail DOES often have different damage signatures on different slopes and why I dismiss much of the "Directional Hail" theory but don't dismiss varying damage on a slope by slope basis. (My quarrel there is workmanlike repairs, drastic color differences and losses of a home's "curb appeal" and in its selling price IF those color variations are substantial or are picked up by a realestate inspector.)
To prove my point, why would one slope of a 4/12 pitched roof be much more badly damaged than another? The answer is, it wouldn't unless the hail were blowing at some unbelievable angle of 50 or 60 degrees. SUSTAINING constant windspeeds in a thunderstorm without gusting and swirling is next to impossible for one thing and I've already said that LARGE hail is more affected by first, Gravity and second, by downbursts than all other factors. However, there may be OTHER reasons for the differences.
Kile you've picked up on why the house next door may have been called a total loss and yours shows little or no damage. Bad roofers and adjusters aside, even in a housing development where the roofs are all the same and the contractor used the same shingles, there are often lots that stay unsold and therefore the homes may be built months later.
If that roof is put on in September and its neighbor was put on in May, the May roof will always be ONE SUMMER AHEAD in the "drying and aging" process!
That is why roofs must be looked at individually.
I believe there is enough evidence out there, even though manufacturers may not want to admit it, for a case to be built that shingles ADD hail resistance as they age and then begin to lose it again as they pass a certain age. My compliments on quite an astute observation and one I heartily agree with.
Now for my traditional last line "zinger" on tear off. That measurin' horse you're ridin' is still DAID!!" LOL
Have a good day and I appreciate the ability to share with those who genuinely want to know. I had rather insurers be taught by genuinely honest suggestions than by litigation but sometimes over-reaction by certain facets of the claims industry don't permit that.
To those who believe it is a numbers game and that cheating on tear off is a way to get back at dishonest insureds and roofers, I can say I genuinely hope both of us live to see justice. For those of you who sincerely try to change what's wrong from within even at the risk of job security, I admire you.
|
Lon |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 18:02:17
|
| As far as I am concerned if it was my roof one hail hit on the entire roof would require full roof replacement. I would not stand for having one brand new shiny bright shingle sticking out like a sore thumb against the background of my 5-8 year old cured shingles that Kile speaks of. A roof is a system and should be replaced as a system, not one shingle at a time. If I ever get in a hail storm I am calling Lon! It's funny how your adjusting training and views change when you are talking about your own property and not the property of others. On your next property inspection try to pretend its your home or your mom's home and as unbiased as you may think you are you will be much more lenient on applying coverages and estimating damages. In fact I think we need a new thread started on insurance adjusters who have had claims on their own homes and how the process unfolded along with the results of their claim. Lets hear some stories adjusters. |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2003 : 22:11:28
|
If you are dis-honest, it doesn't matter whether your are a roofer, a homeowner or an adjuster, the end result is still that your dis-honest. I am about to put my home in Houston on the market and move up here to Virginia. At an asking price of $375,000, I know some home inspector is going to say it needs a new roof. (Other homes in the neighborhood have been replaced due to "hail damage" and it is 3 blocks from the main property office for Allstate.) I could call my State Farm agent and they would not even send anyone out, they would just take my word for it. (They did that on a foundation claim I had on a house 3 doors down the block!) ..... but it has NO hail damage!!!!
The point is - I like being able to look myself in the mirror each morning and believe in myself and the integrity I maintain as a person.
The problem in Texas has been the old HOB 'maintanence' policy which allowed people to let their homes fall apart and then cry injustice when the big, bad insurance company wouldn't come in and build them a new house! I am also a consumer and have to pay the price when bozos like Wes and Lon screw the system and cause premiums to go through the roof with fraudulant claims!
They are the reason my premiums in Texas cost me 2 grand a year and here in Virginia that same house will cost me $400-500!
Look in the mirror each morning guys, tell me what looks back. |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 00:31:36
|
| Kevin, I have heard several times that total roof replacement can not be paid or authorized over the phone with SF. An adjuster has to be involved and inspect with total repalcement is involved. If this is truly the practice around the country I can't tell you. It's just what I've heard. |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 07:08:10
|
| Kevin, how much would the property value of the home you are trying to sell decrease if it had mismatched siding, discolored shingles, two kinds of cabinets in the kitchen and a different color carpet in every room. I am simply saying that I wan't my home to be insured and repaired following a covered loss to the exact same or better condition that it was in when my policy is taken out. I believe my policy affords me this but it seems the insurance companies (some) disagree. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 07:44:09
|
Wes, what and where, in your insurance policy allows you to expect your home to be repaired to a ".... better condition that it was when my policy was taken out ...."?
You suggest you believe your policy ".... affords me this ....", and you suggest some insurers agree.
What insurers agree with your principal of betterment entitlement, i.e "better condition than it was when my policy was taken out"? |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 10:53:25
|
I always heard that Mutual of Clayton and Ted Pasan F&C paid the estimate plus 10%. However the cheapskates at Ghostbuster Indemnity and Kile's Discount Coverage only pay 5% over the estimate.
At least that's what I heard... |
|
|
|
Wes
USA
62 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2003 : 11:08:49
|
I certainly don't have the experience with policy language that most posters here do but doesn't the policy language state for a covered loss that I will be returned to a preloss condition or better condition if preloss can't be met effectively. This is my understanding of replacement cost coverage but believe me I am very open minded to learning if I am missinterperating the policy please help me out.
Let me correct myself by saying this is how I interpret (my understanding) the policy to read and not what the policy states. I think I should stop trying to quote the policy before I get in over my head. :-) |
Edited by - Wes on 10/28/2003 11:12:42 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Impact resistant shingles
Forum Locked
