| Author |
 Topic  |
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
 Posted - 10/03/2003 : 20:41:15
|
Let's talk about hail damage... I have been pondering recently whether or not it is actually true that the hail damage will be visible in 6 months if it is not visible during my current inspection.
I have seen these idea passed around recently and want to have further discussion and input.
Now, as a young adjuster, I went out on a re-i request 3-4 months after my initial denial of hail damage and did find hail damage to warrant repairs to the roof. Was this because I was not thorough enough at the initial inspection? Or was it simply that the damage could not be found?
I have even used this idea as a way to pacify homeowners if they weren't happy with my denial, actually believing what I was telling them (because of the above scenario).
I was particularly disturbed the other day when a roofer met me at a loss and after we scoured the roof the best we could, we found NO hail damage except to some box vents. He had called the claim in for the homeowner claiming hail damage to the roof. After I told him I wasn't buying it, he flippantly said, "wait 6 months, the next adjuster will." That upset me for so many reasons which I know you felt in a visceral way as you read his comment to me.
I guess what I really want to know is, if I look hard enough the first time, can I find that same damage that will possibly show up 6 months later? If I can, how much harder are we talking? An extra 5 minutes per test square? And extra 30 minutes?
I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions or thoughts anyone has on this, from any side of the proverbial fence.
Just do me one favor... let's not get all partisian or flaming here. I like my topics to stay friendly. :-)
Jennifer |
|
|
pilot48
USA
78 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 20:54:12
|
| Jennifer, just to get on the same page here. what exactly do you do to look for hail damage on your inspection? This is a sincere question in an effort to comport to your request. |
 |
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 21:09:45
|
Jennifer,
You are entirely right in feeling upset with the roofer who basically insulted you at the time of your initial inspection with his snide remark! Unfortunately, too many insureds will listen to a roofer over an adjuster in the assessment of the roof condition. As a woman, you face the double hurdle of expertise and credibility in many areas of the costruction business, even though you may be highly qualified.
The principle of "delayed" damage is premised on the impact of the small hailstones pushing the granules into the asphalt core very slightly. This movement of the granules breaks their adhesion to the asphalt but because they are slightly imbedded, they may remain in place for a period of time and eventually be dislodged by rain or snow. Therefore, not showing up for a few months. About the only way to check for true impacts is to lift the tabs and feel underneath for a dimple or crack in the asphalt core.
As for telling the insured that the damage is not apparent at this time but that it may show at a later time, THAT IS PERFECTLY OK! As adjusters, we need to do a better job of informing the insured of as much as possible about damage, the policy, mitigation responsibility and a world of other things!
In the scenerio you laid out, I would (and have on numerous occasions) explain to the insured that the damages are not apparent now and they do not need a new roof AT THIS TIME! I would point out that they do not need to spend their deductible (NO roof is "free"!)to get a new roof and they could put that money aside for a future need! It is amazing the responses I would get from a grateful insured and how seldom I had to argue with a "roof salesman"!
If you ever get the opportunity, attend one of the roof seminars put on by HAAG Engineering. They are great for the information they present even though their analysis process on a roof is rather lengthy for us CAT adjusters!
Hope this helps!
|
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 21:12:26
|
I use the Haag standards. Bruising w/ damage to the mat. Granular loss does not cut it. I tend to avoid calling it hail damage if all of "bruises" are on the butt edge... mostly attributing those types of things to foot traffic. I attempt to distinguish between blisters, weathering, and nail pops.
Good question... hadn't thought to include it. I think this just about covers it.
Jennifer
By edit, I am advising that this is my process now. Can't say I was always as thorough in my formative years. (mini joke here... I've been doing this a little more than 4 years) |
Edited by - fivedaily on 10/03/2003 21:14:45 |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 21:16:03
|
Wow Kevin, that was an excellent response. I never was really able to get my mind around why I might have missed the damage the first time around. Your explanation seems to make real sense and alleviates me of my concern that I may have been giving the short end of the stick on some of these inspections. Thanks.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 21:34:42
|
Well, we have some great input already to Hurricane's good question. Unfortunately, my thoughts are non-scientific and I have no technical data to support them; but it has happened enough over the years that you start to believe the reasoning or explanation.
I see two basic issues involved - given the extent and integrity of your roof inspection.
First, weather conditions or light conditions at the time of inspection. The way the sun shines or a dull grey sky, in comparison to the color of the shingles; at times makes minor damage impossible to see. While in the same neighbourhood a day or so later with different light conditions (be it time of day or general weather), out of curiosity I have gone back to a roof where I thought there should have been hail damage - because of other damage found off the roof - and found hail damage on the roof on that second look. I've convinced myself - much like you have expressed for your reason Jenn - that I didn't see any damage the prior day because of the light conditions prevailing at the time of the first inspection a day or so prior.
Secondly, as was well ballyhoo'd many months ago, I am a believer in cummulative and accelerated granular loss (remember diminshed value). Perhaps the light was right on the first visit and I could not identify any damage on the roof, but 6 months later sure enough there it is. I've come to believe (well almost), and Kevin seems to support much more technically this idea, that hail striking an asphalt shingle roof, but not leaving visible evidence of damage, will cause "extra" or accelerated granular loss in the "hit spots"; therefore becoming visible 6 months later.
As for the roofer's prediction for 6 months hence, so be it, if it comes to pass with an equally conscientious and honest examination of the roof. If there was no damage found today, my wallet stays zipped, with a clear conscious; and I again like the way in which Kevin adresses this issue.
I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts from others on the effect of light conditions, along the lines as I have noted. |
Edited by - CCarr on 10/03/2003 21:39:34 |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 21:47:21
|
Another avenue to consider when the roofer keeps trying to push the issue is to point out to the insured who the ONLY member of the 'trifecta' is that will make a profit from their situation. The carrier will be paying a large portion of the loss, the insured will have to pay their deductible (and in some circumstances, that can be substantial) and the roofer will be the only one pocketing the money! Kind of blows their credibility as an un-biased third-party!
(A little story about a roofer I dealt with in Houston. We looked at a roof and I agreed that we would replace it. As we were about to get on the ladder to get down, I turned to him and said that I wanted him to write an estimate for my consideration and that he should write it as if insurance was not involved, that he was competing for the job. I caught him off guard 'cause his response was (QUOTE) "But we charge more if it is insurance."! I blew up! I said "You just admitted to insurance fraud!" He stammered around and try to backtrack but the damage was done. Whenever I had a claim that company was involved with from then on, I made sure to tell the insured the story and why I would not accept their estimates for the amount of the damages! ) |
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
Mcbride doug
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 22:04:04
|
several years ago while working for a roofing company, i noticed real hail damage on a roof---- the insured called for a re-inspect, i met the adjuster at 3 pm on a sunny day, and all i could do was stand there and look dumbfounded. He said if i still wanted to pursue a total, he would have to call in an engineer. I said OK, but was dumbfounded, there was hail damage there a day ago ----- i went back at 7 pm and took pictures of hail damage( this was a black dimensional roof) ---the engineer looked at the roof in the early morning when light was less severe and backed up my findings. I talked to the adjuster without gloating, and he agreed to replace the roof. --- that was on a fiberglass shingled roof, wood shingles are just as subtle, if not more so. 4 months after a hail strike, a minor impact mark might not be visible. Roofers can wear golf shoes on a steep wood roof to repair it, but the marks from those will be hard to see in a year.
In conclusion--- wood roofs get a bad rap by all the sub standard ones put on, but a #1 or premium quality shake or shingle will stand up to one heck of a hail storm if it is within its first 15 years |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 22:04:17
|
My take on Clayton's discussion of lighting...
I have noticed that sometimes, just after staring at the roof an extra couple of minutes I start to pick up on the shading in the granulation and can begin to pick out hail damage more readily. I think this goes for siding damage also. My theory, it just takes the eyes some time to adjust to whatever lighting and shading conditions existing at the time of inspection.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 22:07:56
|
I just hate those black roofs... if there has been a roofer out who claims impact marks from hail, I try to get that person to meet me at the loss around the same time of day they initially found the damage. I would still support what the adjuster in Doug's scenario did though. If I can't see I can't pay for it. (Though I might have tried for 1 reschedule if I wasn't buried to my neck with claims).
Jennifer |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2003 : 22:21:17
|
| Try wearing Blue Blocker Glasses, You will see anything that is there. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2003 : 07:23:07
|
Fivedailey----The glasses that work well for me are POLARIZED sun glasses, usually green......The department stores sell them in the sporting goods section as "fishing glasses"....they really work and save your eyes from sun damage......I know, because on small hail, I have to wear my bifocals and get on my hands and knees to do a thorough inspection.....wearing bifocals in bright sun is a no no...but the flip up polarized sunglasses work----if you need polarized flip ups, you will probably have to go to LensCrafters--about $25.00 for a good pair......
Another source of "seeing" problems is aluminum siding that has been hit with small hail.....you can't see it during most of the day, but come dusk and there it is....to solve this, wet the siding down with water and get a close angle on the siding---the dents show well with the water on them... |
Edited by - jlombardo on 10/04/2003 07:25:22 |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2003 : 08:36:18
|
Jennifer, I agree with your points and use of the Haag standards. And you do have to let your eyes adjust. I tell folks its like looking at one of those paintings you are suppose to stare at till all of sudden you see 3 penguins standing around a hole in the ice! The amount of sunlight, the color of the shingle, and how well you see are big factors. I take sunglasses sometimes but sometimes looking through sunglasses will filter out the light colors and bring out the dark and when you have a brown shingle with black granuals sprinked in, it tends to look like the whole roof is toast. You still need to put your hands on the shingle and fell for impacts. Dont just get your chalk out and go crazy.
Hail damage not there now, then shows up 6 months later???? It was there at the date of loss. It might have been just harder to see. Hail does not crush or, for the most part, displace the granuals when it impacts. Six months down the road, the rain and wind will have washed the loose granuals off and its easier to see. Just after the date of loss, you can get on a roof and not see much until you brush the loose granuals out of the impacts, so you do have to feel around. If your index finger is not a little raw the 4th or 5th day after you start inspections, you are not looking hard enough if you are in a fringe area.
Good thread Jen!
CD |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 10/04/2003 12:59:18 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2003 : 12:24:00
|
| Yesterday I went to a roof in an area that I new was hit pretty hard. I still can't figure out why people are making claims 5 months after the hail storm, but work is work. As I got to the top of the ladder I could easily see lots of damage. I smiled thinking wow, this is an easy one. Then I got my feet on the roof, stood straight up and the roof looked perfect. I couldn't see a single hit but the vents were pounded and I knew what I had just seen. So, I got down on my knees and tilted my head to the side and looked up the roof with my head about a foot off the surface and there it was, damage galore. As was said earlier the angle of light is important but apparently so is the angle of observation. |
|
|
|
Bockman
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2003 : 22:47:42
|
Don't know that I'd label a contractor's insurance pricing as "fraud"; after all, a windshield replacment will cost the insurance company many times an individual's cash cost to replace just as the .10 Tylenol will cost $3 on the hospital bill. I'm not saying it's right but it is the nature of the beast.
If you want to talk about fraud when it comes to roofing then we'd talk about mechanical damages; but, that's another thread entirely. |
|
|
|
webmaster@loridiaz.com
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2003 : 11:43:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by fivedaily
Let's talk about hail damage... I have been pondering recently whether or not it is actually true that the hail damage will be visible in 6 months if it is not visible during my current inspection.
I have seen these idea passed around recently and want to have further discussion and input.
Now, as a young adjuster, I went out on a re-i request 3-4 months after my initial denial of hail damage and did find hail damage to warrant repairs to the roof. Was this because I was not thorough enough at the initial inspection? Or was it simply that the damage could not be found?
I have even used this idea as a way to pacify homeowners if they weren't happy with my denial, actually believing what I was telling them (because of the above scenario).
I was particularly disturbed the other day when a roofer met me at a loss and after we scoured the roof the best we could, we found NO hail damage except to some box vents. He had called the claim in for the homeowner claiming hail damage to the roof. After I told him I wasn't buying it, he flippantly said, "wait 6 months, the next adjuster will." That upset me for so many reasons which I know you felt in a visceral way as you read his comment to me.
I guess what I really want to know is, if I look hard enough the first time, can I find that same damage that will possibly show up 6 months later? If I can, how much harder are we talking? An extra 5 minutes per test square? And extra 30 minutes?
I would really appreciate any comments or suggestions or thoughts anyone has on this, from any side of the proverbial fence.
Just do me one favor... let's not get all partisian or flaming here. I like my topics to stay friendly. :-)
Jennifer
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
