| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
 Posted - 09/03/2003 : 08:13:11
|
Guys I have a question maybe some will enlighten me.
What exactly is the Insurance companies responsability when a roof decking surface has lathed decking such as 1" x 5" or split decking that is spaced. I have noticed that some carriers claim they do not owe for a nailable surface even though they endorsed a tear off to deck and some just pay no questionsed asked.
Can any one give me the skinny on this subject?
|
|
|
cat man do
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 08:53:29
|
| On the nailable surface are you replacing wood or slate ? Are you replacing comp over improper decking? I worked in st louise last year and a lot of the decking there was 3/8 and company has no responsabilty there .. need more information to give you good answer |
 |
|
|
JMooreKC
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 11:00:18
|
| Insurance owes for decking if the existing is delaminated or no longer a nailable surface. Generally they will not pay for rot but check into that because several will still pay. The slats must have a greater distance than 2 inches. As far as what type of decking they owe for, that is a good question but usually they would owe for the city/state minimum. |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 13:30:07
|
Replacing with asphalt shingles. The homes in question have a 5" tongue and groove type decking. The space where the deck boards come together have spaced out to over 3/8 of an inch. So every 5 inches you have a 3/8 inch gap and the only spot a nail would hold is the thin "tongue" or male portion of the board. But mind you, the nail lines are approximatly every 6 inches, so the nail line would fall between the gaps about every 6, 5 inche shingle course. This would add up to a seriouse installation issue i would imagine.
Hope this is enough info for you cat man do!!!
|
|
|
|
cat man do
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 17:37:39
|
because it is a improper materal applied in the first place there would not be any coverage applied because there is a nailable only have to apply common sents to try not nail in open space .... it seem that builder went a long way to save $ 50 bucks ... the frist roofer was able to apply roof ... and it seems to last for a few years
jw12975@aol.com |
|
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 20:59:25
|
How long has it been since anyone read the building codes? the code and law enforcement endorsements on the policies? or were able to properly apply them "on the roof"? Remembering that most roofing contractors fail to obtain the building permits in the first place. So without a code enforcement officer to inspect many go unchanged and fall well below the current codes.
We had this discussion some time back and I haven't been able to locate it in the archives but will keep trying. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 21:10:10
|
Hi Linda, I didn't really want to get involved in this specific thread, but what you are looking for is not in the archives.
I think what you are looking for was a thread started by yourself called "Repairability Issues", which is currently found on page 3 in the Coverage forum. |
|
|
|
TedPasan
82 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2003 : 23:33:51
|
By and large, it all boils down to two things; (1) how the specific carrier you are working for suggests you handle the claim under these circumstances and (2) what the applicable state law or insurance department ruling in a specific state requires. Some states absolutely require a nailable surface and others take an approach 180 degrees in the opposite direction, saying that a carrier does not owe for any item not present at the time of loss.
The simple way to handle such claims, is to ask your vendor or carrier supervisor on a specific storm for damages in a specific state while working for a specific carrier. There is NO one size fits all generalization which can be made with any accuracy carrying across a multitude of states and carriers. |
|
|
|
LAW1526
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 08:20:37
|
| When applying 4’X 8’ sheets of roof sheathing over trusses, gapping of at least a 1/4" and no larger than 3/8" at the butt joints is required by UBC code. The gapping is for breathing and expansion of the roof sheathing. I have never had a problem with a nailing surface over this type of sheathing installation for any type of roof coverings. |
|
|
|
olderthendirt
USA
370 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 08:51:19
|
My recollection is that there are two main reasons that a carrier owes for a nailable surface. When the roofing was hailed on years before the carrier saved money by having shingles applied over wood shingles (common in Dallas). or a carrier and the insured agree to replace shakes with asphalt and it is cheaper to pay for the shinlges and a nailable surface (a win win situation). |
|
|
|
TomWeems
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 09:20:45
|
| This is a question that comes up from time to time and the answer is always different on every storm. I have had two different insurors on the same storm take opposing sides of this at the same time. What is boils down to is this. Each carrier has the right to have their files adjusted according to their wishes. It's their money, and they set the rules as to how we recommend that they spend it. If you are instructed to not buy the decking, then the best you can do is make a note in the file as to why you feel it's warranted and let them make the decision. Most policies have an exception for "ordinance or law" so building codes should not enter into it. I do believe the Texas DOI has spoken on the subject, saying that the carrier will provide a nailable surface. My personal feeling is that we owe it if the roof cannot be installed over the surface that is present, but as you can see there are many other considerations. My advice for what it's worth, follow the carrier's directions, close the file and move on to the next one. |
|
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 12:45:44
|
Thanks Clayton. While I agree with all of you to some extent, there are still some considerations to be made. IF the carrier has charged a premium for the ordinance or law endorsement then in the vein of "good faith" you owe it. My experience has been that the carriers will tell you they first must have that code in writing from the building inspector before they will pay it. That directive brings me to my comment regarding roofers NOT obtaining permits. Not all roofers are this irresponsible but many are.
Actually the governor adopted the International Building Code for the entire State of Texas.
If you are directed not to pay it all you can do is to document your file. Tom is correct in closing the file and moving on but keep in mind this one may be revisited in the courthouse.
|
|
|
|
cat man do
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 13:04:52
|
| But if everyone will look at the queston you will see that he did not state that the 1x6 t&g was damaged , He only stated that the t&g was not installed using the groves and that there was a 3/8 inch space, and if the spacing of the materal only thing that makes it unnailable how was the roof applied befor , and i would still say thet it is not covered |
|
|
|
slowhandfan
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 13:59:55
|
SF is no longer paying for nailable surface..
direct physical loss only.
|
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 14:46:29
|
| every one read exclusion 22 on page 10 of the MIC 3. Same language was called code 40 years ago. Do you folks work for insurance companies, or consumer groups? |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 14:53:23
|
| nailable surface belongs in the same file folder with "too old to repair" and several other contractor phrases. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Nailable Surface
Forum Locked
