| Author |
 Topic  |
|
stormincontractor
USA
5 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2003 : 23:41:47
|
| You guys have to much time... |
 |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 07:13:51
|
Lon, there are a large number of things that I am "not", and it doesn't bother me a bit to admit them.
Four of those "nots" that come to mind fairly frequently lately are - I am not young anymore, I'm not really interested in the technical issue of this thread anymore, I'm not an expert on roofing, and I'm not a follower nor have I ever been a follower of the Cornelius that you have mentioned several times.
With regards to the latter point, I am surprised that the two of you have not met at some dusty junction of the many trails in this thread. Your Cornelius is still amongst us in a rather deceptive guise; but with the same pompeity.
Lon, you are not going to score a victory on your issue in this web site. I respect you for your courage and tenacity to pursue it here with such vigor, I truly mean that. As well, although I do not agree with all you have to say, you do have a good ability to present your thoughts. As to my "sassiness", in part as a response to yours towards others, in part as a defensive comment, and in part as an expression of frustration for a thread that has run its course; however none of it was expressed with any malicious intent to you.
Lon, you raised an issue, you presented your side, the rebuttals are clear. What is the point in continuing to pound away at it on this web site? |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 08:03:29
|
I think it is a valid question. I thought so last year and I still do. I believe a demonstration of this issue should be put on with witnesses from CADO and the Texas Department of Insurance present as well as invited representatives from the carriers and the plaintiffs legal industry.
A simple one square gabled shed would suffice in the parking lot of the TDI in Austin. Tell me when it will happen and I'll show up wearing a maroon shirt and khaki pants. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 08:53:10
|
| I'm glad someone else has seen this strange reuse of felt too. With all the extra labor and hassle involved in trying to tear off the shingles and leave the felt intact it seems to me that it would be cost prohibitive. Felt isn't that expensive or difficult to install. How much are they really saving by going through all the trouble? |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 11:30:43
|
Kile,
It has been my experience ( I worked for a family member's resto business for a short while after I got out of school, before I became an adjuster), that roofers that re-use felt aren't going to extra lengths to do so, it is actually easier (not to mention all of the roofs I've seen with NO felt)not to tear it off.
When the tear-off crew starts stripping the roof, depending on the age and condition of the shingles, they can actually be torn off by hand, and come off in large chunks, 5-10 shingles at a time (the nails hold them together). Except for the nails, the shingles' tar strip sticks them together, but not to the felt.
What you then have is a roofing surface that generally leaves a large percentage of the felt in place, except for the occasional tear here and there, with hundreds if not thousands of nails sticking up.....The surface must be prepared then by either hand-pulling all of those nails, or simply pounding them flat into the deck surface. Tearing off the felt would be an extremely tedious process not only because of the roofing nails left behind, but also the large plactic-caps used to originally hold the felt into place. Most of the quality roofers I've seen, will, after the shingles are removed and the deck surface has been prepared, will re-felt over the surface, over whatever felt was left behind. I'm sure some would just patch the felt as you described, butI would think (or like to ) that percentage is low (but it has been over 8 years).
So I think to answer your question, they are not really trying to save the money on the materials, but leaving the felt, which is very difficult and time consuming to remove, is saving them labor. Most individual roofers (the actual laborers, sub-contractors themselves)in the south get paid by the sq of tear-off, and by the sq when installing. They have no personal interest in seeing the complete felt being torn off (save for the occasional deck patch)and only want to get the nailable surface smooth as quick as possible so they can start to lay shingles....Most of them, then, do not even consider not felting the job.....The crews I had experience with actually divided the job into two parts, tear off (some had separate crews) and install (with the experienced installers as opposed to more general labor). It was generally the tear-off crews' responsibility to strip, prepare, and felt (To help protect against pop-up thunderstorms). Then the roof would be better prepared should it rain or if the installing crew wasn't ready until the next day. (Most 20-30 sq roofs (one-story 4:12)were torn-off and reinstalled by a crew of 4-8 in less than an eight hour day).
I agree with Clayton, there is really no use in continuing the discussion with the "visitor". Arguable points were made, and in my opinion, the truth, as it usually does, falls somewhere in between. There actually are more shingles than the actual SF of the deck surface in place, but I know it is NOT the full 10% allowed for WASTE on the install. The number of starters and ridge on the surface during tear-off is what is left over of the 10% that was trash and thrown into the dump truck during installation. To me, this is just splitting hairs.
What does any visitor from the construction industry think he has to gain from his bashing of the accepted standards that we as individuals are forced to use?, and that the overwhelming majority of his own colleages willingly (and profitably) accept?
Roofing, by the job, in my experience,is extremely profitable, or at the least, more profitable than a lot of other trades. After the 5/5/95 storm in DWF, the number of ads in the yellow pages for roofers jumped from just over 400 to over 800 the next year. I'm sure some of the venom unwisely injected into this site has to be a result of the trend towards % deductibles (that can't be made up with "advertising allowances" or just (illegally) swallowed by the roofers anymore), rising internal costs (insurance, etc). I do not know the specifics of todays profitability, but in 95, in Texas, a general unit cost I saw was $18 off and $78 on. Materials averaged $25-27. The laborer was paid $8 to tear off and prepare the deck, including felt(and dump fee). The laborer was paid $5/bundle ($15/sq) to put on. That is a total (and yes I know prices have changed, and other areas are more)$47/sq.....I would and have stated to roofers that wanted to add O&P to the bill that the other $40 or so dollars was the O&P.....Ask to see the actual check paid to the crew and the material invoice for the job and you will not get it, and generally the discussion will end.
There is nothing constructive to be gained by any of us by continuing to split hairs with people that do not even know there is nothing constructive that can be gained (more money for him)by trying to prove who is right or wrong, by bashing the standards that are set much higher (or lower? LOL)up the food chain than independent adjusters.....
Is 5-8% of actual difference on the tear off price on a standard 20 sq roof (1- 1.5 X $25/sq) really that big of a deal? What about the recent trend towards including a dumpster charge of $300-500 where in the past the dump fee was included in the price? - RFG 220 in Xactimate shows that price INCLUDES dump fees, hauling and disposal!!!!Put your felt on, roofer, regardless if some estimate doesn't state it. Some estimates do, some don't. Do you want to see individual line items for the boxes of nails, too? How about the electricity it costs to run a nail-gun?
I would think our visitor might find more sympathy and about as much ability to change this self-percieved horrible wrong in a roofer's forum somewhere rather on CADO!
|
Edited by - catmanager on 10/22/2003 11:35:41 |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 12:37:54
|
Okay gents,
I'll drop the tear off point since Ghost's idea is EXACTLY what a contingent of us proposed to Sheriff Montemayor. However, unbeknowst to many of you here, he was not interested if the practice hurt only roofers.
As for Catmanager's reply on felt, most of it was factual and well-written. Leaving the old felt is fine as long as fasteners are pulled or nailed in and as long as a new layer is installed properly over the old one. As far as his conjecture about '95 labor rates in DFW, there may have been a few crews who settled for those wages but they were not as experienced or as good as the norm. also absent from "labor rates are sales commissions and supervisory wages (sorta like the adjuster and cat manager fees and salaries for your business model)
Plus, I NEVER indicated the "cut waste" was not there. It weighs in at approximately 1 1/2% - 3% of the jobs net NOT the 10% - 15%, making the "on" for a hip 15% (since the shingles are bought and used even though scraps are cut off) and the "off" 12% or thereabouts.
So for the moment, the insurance industry is free to continue that and other practices that will eventually ruin it. (BTW,one of those happens to be dictating lower prices to cat djusters just like they do to roofers. Sadly, the young industrious Kile's of the industry will be put out to pasture similar to the computer industry's reliance of exporting tech support jobs to Indian immigrants who will work for lower wages - never mind that the consumer spends three times as long trying to understand the broken English support instructions.)
Back to the hail damage discussion that was the original thrust of this thread and the felt question brought up by Kile.
First, Kile's labor philosophy is a good one but with rising deductibles and paltry price increases doled out by insurers that don't keep pace with real world costs, those corners cut are actually part and parcel to the only substantial profit margins these con men "roofers" see.
A thirty square roof will use approximately $220 in felt and plasti-caps including tax. The same roof will have another $150 in starter and metal edging. The labor saved in not tearing those off will come in at around $150 and the disposal, gasoline or trucking expense will drop it another $30.
So a "roofer" can increase his "profit" by $550 on a thirty square roof.
He will use most of that "profit" to acquire the sale by giving the consumer a lower and more attractive bid which you guys help out by paying it ALL up front and allowing the consumer to get "help" on his deductible without actually breaking the law.
Don't think the carriers don't know what they're doing. THAT'S why they write the check up front - they know the homeowner will SHOP for a low bid. This way, the roofer doesn't have to pad the estimate to help with the owner's deductible. Caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place by having the choice of corner cutters helping save the dedcutibles up front or by having crooks pad the estimate on the back end, the insurance industry took the former.
They should have pursued the "padders" since there are rules that allow insurers to do that and to prosecute those offenders. Then they wouldn't have been complicit in funding the corner-cutting they know is happening.
It is sad that the opportunity to make a quick buck takes precedence over the protection of one of the home's most integral parts but human nature is not always pretty nor does it look at long-term ramifications.
I blame consumer greed, insurer greed and contractor greed for this situation. It is a genuine shame, however, that carriers 1) don't recognize the danger of their actions and 2) that front line adjusters do not have more say in dictating policy in these areas. You guys are more knowledgeable than carriers and con men "roofers" - now if we could make you as knowledgeable as REAL professional roofers and then make carriers RESPECT your knowledge and ours, we would be somewhere.
As long as "roofers" - who might have been commercial finish out contractors the week before a storm agree to do "tha Job" for the price "dictated" by insurers there will continue to be a redefinition of "tha job" brought about by an increasingly downward spiral in overall roofing quality. It will continue to be driven equally by greedy insureds who want to save on premiums through lower deductibles, carriers who mandate that many separated items from software estimating programs be "included at no extra charge", and a never-ending supply of corner-cutting dishonest and poorly-trained "roofers".
The sad thing is that the lower pricing aggressively "created" by skewed surveys will only signal final disaster for roofs and THEN the industry will wind up paying bigtime. Why? Because it is always deemed to have superior knowledge, "deeper pockets" and more culpability than the consumer.
Jennifer, be careful about two things on checking for hail. 1. Bruises that caused visible granule loss (not just granules in the gutter but spots) WILL signal an onset of UV degradation and therefore are NOT considered "harmless" by manufacturers or DOI's. 2. Fracturinmg of the mat is no longer a prerequisite to considering a shingle with a fiberglass mat damaged by hail no matter what Haag might say. Separation and cracking of the asphalt coating that bonds to the mat will allow the porous fiberglass mat to take on water wheter the mat is fractured or not. Take it from one who knows - this "no mat fracture defense" wins only temporarily when there is not an expert around to argue. Now that you know, I'm sure there are calls that can me made to ANY shingle manufacturer or to any Certified and Licensed Roof Consultant who will back up those studies so you won't just have to take my word for it.
As far as the HO-145 cosmetic damage waiver signed by insureds in Texas on some Impact Resistant roofs, the Texas Department of Insurance has already ruled that bruises causing granule loss that permit sufficient UV rays to hit bare coating are NOT considered cosmetic and therefore may not be excluded by the waiver as such.
As dumb as I am, I never "tore off no shingles" and when treated in a civil fashion can sometimes be informative to even the most seasoned adjuster.
I know we aren't in court but just think how well yelling "Roofer! Roofer! Look at what this other roofer did!" would play in front of a jury when used as a rebuttal to my factual and provable assertions. It may work here when the 'attaboys' flow forth and when the cyber crowd cheers, but it is inherently hollow as a answer.
Thanks for your time. Believe it or not, I am here in your playhouse to offer ideas and methods of improvement in much the same way I do with the roofing industry. My manner got your attention. The rest is up to you.
Believe it or not, I would rather help to evoke change through knowledge than through the court system.
By the way, there have been some very intelligent responses to the latter portions of this thread. My compliments to those of you who made them. |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/22/2003 13:17:29 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 15:56:19
|
That's much better! Your post was strident and passionate without being offensive. Thank you, I knew you could do it. Your thought processes showed development and rationale was lucid. Excellent!
Now you can have a cookie! No one is perfect, we all gather here to relax, learn from each other, and have a few grins. In fact, the last adjuster who was perfect wound up with nail holes in his hands almost 2100 years ago. Outside the clubhouse is a rough and tumble world, inside is our refuge where we strive to be tolerant and get along with each other. Except, of course, for a certain Canadian and North Carolinian who refuse to wash their hands before returning to work! |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 19:15:04
|
Lon, what is used to measure whether "sufficient UV rays" are hitting the mat after granule loss? What reference is used to arrive to a conclusion of damaged or not?
And if the mat is visible and exposed to sunlight/UV rays due to a hail impact, isn't that more likely to be considered a markable "hit" anyway? |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 20:07:31
|
Thanks for the help guys, I actually knew what the roofers fax meant. Lon it was two ply, 20 year Tamco shingles. The owner hired her handy man to roof the house. She is an attorney and the house was a rental. She is recovering her 500.00 deductible any way she can. I do understand roofing matters, having been in this wierd business for 43 years. I roofed when I was a kid and decided realy quick that it was not a profession I was interested in. I built two houses for myself and family, from slab up, so I know all the trades of construction.
We have written, so far, over 100 estimates and have agreed prices on all of them with the local boys, no fussing, no fighting. We all need to make a decent living in this business, including all trades, but an honest one. As far as your analysis, it has merit, but you should indulge to present your case to the folks that cut the checks, the insurance companies. We have no control on what they want or ask us to do, if we wish to continue working. Sad, but very true. Roofing is a tough job, at least to the ones on the roof handling the material, scraping the roofs off, laying out the felt and slamming the shingles on. Thats one reason you see very few of us U.S. citizens doing it. It is a lowly and hard job, with very little pay, so we think it is beyond dignity. I wonder if that might be a reason Companies are moving over seas. Anyway, thanks for becoming one of us and doing it in a diplomatic way. I was beginning to wonder if you had failed the Dale Carnegie courses. |
|
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 20:19:24
|
| Lon, you have managed to partially change the mind of this old adjuster toward the stereotype "roofer" with your prose. I can only wish that someone from each of the building trades with your ability to communicate would step forward and "hold forth" like you have. While, I still do not think there will be any change to the price structure of roofing tear-off, I do understand your argument. Apparently the industry has evolved into the mindset that this is the way it has and will be handled. Kind of nice to see a civil discourse here where we can agree to disagree. |
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 22:55:11
|
Greetings:
Every good roofer leaves the original felt on. This is to prevent another claim, in case of asudde storm. Then you drive all the nails in and ccover wwith 1 more layer.
Yes of course it is easier thant tearing it all off, weight is not a problem, and it is a great preventitive measure.
BLT
|
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2003 : 22:56:47
|
| Bad roofers leave it on too Brooksie! |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 10/22/2003 22:57:15 |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 00:13:45
|
Aw shucks, fellas.
Ghost, I don't know whether I can drag that cookie down this hollow hole in my tree but I'll try. Thanks. What do I have to do for milk?
Catdaddy, let me clear up the broken coating issue along with UV degradation.
Here are your questions:
Catdaddy: Lon, what is used to measure whether "sufficient UV rays" are hitting the mat after granule loss?
Lon: First, I did not say that UV rays had to hit the mat. They don't. They only have to shine on the non-protected coating (the asphalt that waterproofs the mat). So bruises which show coating even without mat breakage 1) will void the manufacturer's warranty. 2) are not considered cosmetic no matter what Big Red or Haag say.
If there are no visible fractures there can also still be damage. Since it is a judgement call, I look first for visible missing granules - I NEVER EVER have made a case for granules in the gutter, on the driveway or in the flower bed, EVER! Shedding granules is a fact of life for ALL granule covered roofing materials.
The area which is missing granules (unless it is a break that can cause structural distress) must be large enough to allow significant UV rays to hit the coating. Generally hail BRUISES need to be larger than a dime in size. (Smaller than that and I have doubts about their even being caused by hail)
The absence of these visible bruises, however doesn't mean you are home free. It simply means you need to also eliminate other potential manifestations of hail being present before you deny there is hail damage.
The actual size of the "bare spot" or the size of the indentation that will eventually let go of granules due to the bruise, is certainly not always perfectly quantifiable. However, as I said, dime sized bald spots are hard to miss and even without mat frasctures they signal the beginning of UV degradation.
I actually agree with a FEW of Haag's theories, however on a percentage basis, I agree less than half the time and find that their assessment of repairability and its subsequent reformulation in certain labor models by some insurers to be simply way off base - even un-doable.
Catdaddy: What reference is used to arrive to a conclusion of damaged or not?
Lon: Visible spots of bare coating - not mat - is the indicator for future UV degradation. To amplify on fractures and the like, you must understand that, unlike old organic shingles, the new fiberglass mats are not waterproof. Old organic mats were actually asphalt saturated felt and were waterproof entities in and of themselves just like today's underlayment. The coating and the granules were added to the inner felt layer to lengthen the short lifespan which would be expected with no further protection.
Today's fiberglass is porous and must have coating on top and below the mat with connection through the fibers in the mat. After the granules are applied, it does become a slightly more hearty product from a blistering standpoint than were the old organic shingles. It is a more cohesive and less contaminated product for the most part.
What studies and destructive tests are indicating today is that the coating can be cracked BELOW the granules by hail. These cracks may not, at the same time, crack the mat and indeed, the mat may never crack from the hail. However the death blow dealt to the shingle is the ability of the water to pass through the cracks. Once it reaches the mat, it will pass directly through the mat because a fiberglass mat looks like flattened angel hair (not the pasta but the Christmas decoration). This exceedingly porous layer is the "rebar", if you will, in the concrete. It's purpose is to to keep the hardened asphalt coating from cracking and falling apart due to its minimal thickness and tensile strength. Adding thickness without extra plies of "rebar" or fiberglass causes the "alligatoring" you see on patched asphalt drives, commercial roofs - similar to dried up pond beds.
That is why Built Up Roofs are "Built Up" using layers with thin interply moppings of hot asphalt in between layers. Bottom line - cracking of the asphalt even without tearing or fracturing the coating is destructive and it is considered real damage by all manufacturers.
Catdaddy: And if the mat is visible and exposed to sunlight/UV rays due to a hail impact, isn't that more likely to be considered a markable "hit" anyway?
Lon: Yes, Catdaddy. Those are the EASY ones. I have also spotted some very hard ones and different mats make different shingles manifest damage in different ways. The hardest I ever had to spot was the old Johns-Manville "Woodlands" style shingle (made in the same way a Timberline or other such laminated shingles were produced.)
J-M actually produced the FIRST fiberglass matted laminated shingles. However, it took a couple of hailstorms to prove to me that these shingles NEVER bruised. The coating was extra thin and the tensile strength of the mat was off the scale LOW. We saw a lot of these put over cedar roofs in the early and mid 80's because they had a SIX inch exposure and unlike FIVE inch Timberline, they could be "nested" on a roof even though you were losing half an inch of material on every course or about 10% and it cost you that much more labor, too.
The advantage was the loss of the rippled line every four or five courses occasioned by the shorter exposure on the Timberline when they could not "nest" or be butted against the cedar shingle butts without overexposure.
These J-M Woodlands perplexed me as a younger man when I saw no bruises but found semi-circular "cuts" all over the roof. My first thought? You gotta laugh. "Had to be some roofer walking on the roof with cowboy boots and tearing thes shingles", I thought. Then my awakening in forensics occurred.
I visited another house in the same hail-pummeled area also with a J-M fiberglass lamainate over cedar but lo and behold, they had used an organic ridge shingle on this one and it showed the classic bruises and granule loss of the softball sized hail that had hit the area. I looked closely at the fiberglass J-M field and found hundreds of the same half-moon shaped cuts I had seen on the other house. The cuts themselves were not much thicker than a human hair but the shingles were broken all the way through! That's what really started my forensic passion about roofs.
Manufacturers will ALWAYS refuse to honor a material warranty where hail has left visible openings in the granules that cover the coating because that signals the beginning of the end of the life of the roof.
Climate determines how long it takes for the process of UV degradation to eventually cause a leak.
To the people like Tom Toll, Ghost, Johnd, Wm. Cook and even those of you who booted me around a bit but were men enough to come back and say that I had some valid points, I thank you. We are actually in the same boat with our fates inextricably tied to the whims of carriers and consumers. We do the best we can and take one day at a time.
Do I think I'll change tear off policy? I won't right away but my wish is NOT to bankrupt the insurance indutry - it is to point out alternative ways to achieve a profitable bottom line for all of us.
I'm climbing back into the hollow hole in my tree in the forest until another day. I may come out tomorrow or next year. Don't chop my tree down. My wife is part Spotted Owl. She's protected and you'll be in worse trouble than ANY DOI could posssibly rain down upon your chainsaw-weilding butts!
G'night |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/23/2003 00:38:17 |
|
|
|
goose
57 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 05:05:39
|
| Farmers, this past spring, came out with a memo that said the shingle must actually be bruised- and they said to lift the shingle and look on the underside to verify this. I am not currently working for them since I am at the hurricane, so I do not know if that is becoming SOP or was just one of many memos that are soon forgotten. I asked if they meant that loss of granules was not necessarily hail damage and was told that was exactly what they meant. I adjusted my claims the way I always do and had no problems, but I was near the end when I received the memo. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 08:39:58
|
And that is the way you should adjust claims, the way the company you are working for tells you too. Its their money, not yours. When it yours, you can spend it how you like.
If you were not insured and a hail storm hits your neighborhood and you, with your years of experience as a cat adjuster, climbed up there and found no common hail damage, the type you have been circling forever, then Lon drops by and says "Hey, you have thousands of microscopic hairline cracks in the granule layer of your shingles. You need a new roof and here is my estimate. Please note the tear off amount is the same as the application amount. Please sign here. Trust me, I'm not just a roofer, I'm a consultant!"
What are you gonna to with YOUR money in that situation?
You guys that think because you read it here, its all facts. This is a forum where most of us don't even use our real names. Why is everything that comes out of a stranger's mouth a fact when it means an adjuster might be able to bill more for it and it's BS when the situation is reversed?
Insurance companies cannot afford to not pay valid claims. Its called bad faith. Its what 100 million dollar lawsuits are made of. So if all this theory that we have been wading through was any more than just that, how could insurance companies not adhere to those guidelines? The answer is they could not. Because two people looking to prove something climb on the same roof and agree to some made-up idea doesnt make it an industry standard by any means.
Lon, asks these guys if they are going to adjust hail claims based on what you say or what the carrier they are working for says. I think you might have said all that for nothing. Sorry.
CD
|
Edited by - CatDaddy on 10/23/2003 10:55:09 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
