| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2003 : 11:06:43
|
Catdaddy, you remain amazingly uninformed, arrogant and combative. I'll say this one more time for the benefit of the poster who worked for Farmers and seems to be genuinely seeking information.
That method of lifting the shingles to find a tear in the back coating is insuffficient in and of itself in determining damage when bruises are present and a porous fiberglass mat is concerned. Destructive testing has proven it. An organic shingle's mat was a different story. Fiberglass shingles must be looked at with with the knowledge that they will react differently.
It has been my experience that carriers work using the theory of large numbers They will continue to setlle claims 'slightly' unfairly as long as they have some engineering company that advances a bogus theory as to why the damage is from another source. This eliminates most of the chance they might be sued for bad faith since they are "relying" on an "expert".
I fully realize that many companies will put pressure on you to settle roof claims as the poster just described. Farmers has not in the past been above misstating fact, even in DOI investigations. They have been fined for improper behavior in Texas.
I posted an EXACT copy of a letter obtained in an investigation of tear off practices conducted by the Texas Department of Insurance. It clearly showed the they fed the Texas Department bogus figures. At the time, Jim Flynt even suggested sarcastically that "alien intervention" might have caused the letter to say what it did.
Later, the signer of the letter, Farmers' head honcho in Texas, used a flimsy and untrue excuse to blame the content on a employee no longer there even though HE signed the two paragraph letter!
Look in the archives. It is posted there under "Why Must Farmers continue...."
The only thing I agree with about what Catdaddy just opined is that bucking the system alone is dangerous for your "continued employment's health".
However, Catdaddy, to say I'm wrong when you have no personal knowledge of the facts is either stupidity or arrogance at its worst. Besides, you've already admitted you cheat on the tear off figure because you admit the existence of more squares of shingles.
Continuing to slam me when my responses are truthful while you somehow thrust a sort of
"no firsthand knowledge" theory on the world of forensics is laughable.
You must be one of the contenders for Cornelius' throne as keeper of the ancient scrolls.
Again, no matter what you, Farmers or Haag preaches, mat fracture is not required for their to be damage to roofing shingles and membranes. IT ONLY REQUIRES COATING FRACTURE or bruising that permits the onset of UV degradation! And this is the important thing. TDI agrees and so would anyone who had an open mind.
I recently acted in a consultant capacity on a commercial loss where destructive testing was SKIPPED by Haag and a "Fluff" report claimed no damage. Destructive testing later proved that the damage was REAL, WIDESPREAD, AND CAUSED BY HAIL. Once Farmers saw that MORE in depth report, they paid the claim without so much as demanding appraisal, arbitration or mediation.
In my opinion, Haag's very provable (by court records) biased "outcome-based engineering" that sometimes reaches a figure of as much as a 94% record of finding no covered peril damage, will soon get them in some real hot water. Then the carriers who use them should follow because of their complicity in that "tag team" match.
Catdaddy, at least admit that your motivation is job security based along with a healthy dose of "roofer" hate. If not, your ignorance and close-mindedness is off the screen.
Have a great day. |
Lon |
 |
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 12:32:47
|
Have a nice life Lon. I grow weary of this back and forth fairy tale. I think I will continue to utilize the recognized experts and ignore the self-appointed ones.
And I dont hate roofers. Just the roofers that pretend to be something they are not.
CD |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 12:46:35
|
Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! And, you were doing so well until backsliding into acrimony.
We have no choice but to fit with the Dunce cap and set you in the corner for awhile. Yes, you may go the bathroom first. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 13:43:45
|
Backsliding is such a strong word GB.
If Lon wants to keep sparring, I'll still be here. Its his turn. Meanwhile, I'll be looking for a more credible opponent. I emailed the MENSA people and asked for an A player this time. They apologized for Lon and are sending MENSA cards for me and all my friends. What's your address? I'll mail ya one!
CD
|
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 14:21:04
|
To my staunch supporter, Catdaddy, Recognizing experts because some of the expert communitiy's most ardent insurance supporters have only Civil Engineering degrees and more importantly because they agree with what you WANT the outcome to be is a fine ambition. To a point, it has served the Insurance Industry well.
Catdaddy, since the location associated with your screen name (How quaint you would slam anonymity) is "Tornado Alley", can you tell us which one(s), if any, of those states has adopted the International Residential Code and which ASTM (the ORIGINAL recognized testing entity) number is required for fiberglass strip shingles in the state(s) where the IRC code has been adopted, if it has been?
And, if not, how can you scope a loss that needs shingle replacement or for that matter, tell whether a contractor responding to a pricing survey is using the proper shingles?
Would those shingle requirements be the same (deed restrictions aside) for a single family dwelling, a duplex, a triplex, a quadruplex or a 20 unit residential structure?
ASTM developed the test and qualifications for the shingle standard used in the International Residential Code. You should know that when adjusting losses in the states where the IRC applies if they are in your "home" area or "work" area.
Thanks in advance for your non-reply. |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/23/2003 14:47:07 |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 14:48:34
|
Gee Lon, I thought you said goodnight, with the faint hope that the dust could settle last night. I'm at odds with your allegations concerning engineers, can't say it doesn't happen; just never saw that result in the circle I travelled.
However big fella, I'm afraid that your Cornelius character rubbed off on you a bit - something likely the same as backsliding. Like that shadow, you are now asking verbose technical questions, to which you know - and have at your finger tips - the answers; never understood that strategy. It is a worthy group of questions and I would be interested in the answers, as I surely have no idea, especially as it may apply to the last question of your post. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 16:21:26
|
I see that gene in him also. You're not broke, sitting in your soiled underwear, next to an empty Jack Daniels bottle are you? Maybe we have found another one of the Cornelius CADO aliases.
I have only one question for you. What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen African swallow?
Thanks in advance for your non-reply.
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 16:34:13
|
| Guys, enough of the baiting already. Much more of this and Senor Roy will have to be called in cleanse the thread. I suggest we just let it go. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 16:52:09
|
I'm done. No need for cleansing. Roofer good. Granule loss bad. Me understand.
Can I take this pointy hat off and come out of the corner now? I have to go to the bathroom again.
CD
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2003 : 20:48:36
|
| One last question for Lon, did you ever think that Haag has a 94% record of finding no damage because the insurance company won't spend the money on the engineering report unless they absolutely know that there is no hail damage. If they think it may be there or if they are just not sure they will probably pay the claim. There is no use in spending $1500 to get an engineer to tell you to spend another 5 or 10 grand. They only call the engineer when it is necessary to back up their own findings, not when they are not sure. |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2003 : 11:50:10
|
Kile, that is an excellent point and I will most readily admit that you have a very good body of experience to uphold a major portion of that assumption. It would be true that insurers wouldn't need to use an engineer when the claimant agreed.
I would suggest that the 94% may be accurate on agreement between Haag and Insurers because of one court case involving 82 foundation claims and another where Haag was disqualified as not being disinterested when it came to certain Big Red cases because Big Red already had a pretty good certainty of the way Haag would opine BEFORE they were sent out.
My reason for stating that is the unwillingness of most carriers to question Haag's theories. In my opinion, the effort to please insurers and to create a demand for their C.E. materials taints Haag's necessity to be perceived as impartial.
By the way, those ASTM numbers should be a part of any adjuster's repertoire. As for strip shingles (three tabs and other non-laminated shingles it is ASTM 3462 for fiberglass based shingles).
In my opinion, an adjuster who opines on prices as so many have done in this thread and those who then bring "roofer dishonesty" and "gouging" into the picture should know those things. Without knowing that roofers who are CHEAPER (synonymous with more honest on this board) are even putting on code compliant shingles, how can an adjuster even know if his pricing surveys are accurate or his scopes of loss are correct for the building codes in effect?
I do see your point and recognize its validity and it actually coincides with many of the cases I've seen where insureds are "stirred up" for no reason by roofers who are 1) dishonest or 2) inexperienced and who disagree with competent adjusters.
On the other hand, when I see those, and I'm asked to get involved by a TV station, homeowner, insurer or another roofer, then those are the files that remain closed that some of you never hear about.
However, on ANY commercial loss I see where the claimant was paid for a swep back, flood and re-gravel, I will do ANYTHING I can to show the insurance adjuster is offering a repair that exists in no industry recognized repair manual anywhere. The same hold true for mis-identification of damage, quality, weights, repairability, size and any number of other areas I see vendors and carriers abuse with regularity.
Best wishes, |
Lon |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2003 : 17:41:57
|
| Ok, I'm curious. And I mean this with no sarcasm and the utmost of respect. What is the deficiency in the sweep and flood method? Is it that is isn't in a book somewhere or is there some real reason why it isn't acceptable. Please, I'm willing to listen. |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2003 : 18:20:02
|
No disrespect taken, Kile.
I'm always glad to promote accepted roofing practices and those that are going to last.
The "Spud and Flood" or "Sweep Back Flood and Re-Gravel" immerged long ago when replacement cost wasn't as popular or as prevalent in policies and before forensics helped to quantify damage as much as they do today.
It was normally a "horse-trade" in that the adjuster didn't think there was much, if any, hail damage and the owner didn't know either. He just knew he had leaks.
Along comes Mr. Ex-Sheetrocker, Trim carpenter, you fill in the blank turned roofer who is involved either by the insured or the adjuster. A compromise settlement is reached because 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 3 of them think "pouring hot tar" on the roof will fix the leaks.
Some of you have even seen empty bags of Portland cement which do a similar "quick fix" on ponded water leaks.
However, the strength and longevity of a built up roof are in the transitions and in the "building up of plies" in a PROPER fashion.
Just as I explained "alligatoring" in another post on shingles, hot tar simply poured on a roof lacks any of the reinforcement necessary to last for more than a few months.
In the old days, before fiberglass felt, organic felt intended for use in built up systems had perforations to allow the asphalt to flow and bond between the plies and to coat the asphalt felts.
While that worked when applied in thin layers, it was learned that a more porous felt using fiberglass allowed more thorough asphalt penetration and bonding.
Back to the "Spud and Flood". No good because without the proper reinforcement or "rebar" in the system, the thick puddles of asphalt will alligator and allow water to penetrate just as it did before.
It is a poor temporary patch sold for WAY more money than it is worth so that the fly-by-night roofer will go along with the deal because of its outrageous profit.
In the long run, it is as bad as a band-aid would be on a "severed artery".
Better to pay NOTHING than to do the Spud & Flood. I have seen dozens of them re-opened and have yet to see an insurer come out on top once it is learned what they suggested even if a contractor goes for it.
Big Red and many of the software people will probably soon regret the presence of that entry on their pricing surveys and estimating software since the only guys answering with a price either don't know any better or, worse, DO know better and are out for a quick buck.
It is too late now for them to find all that old software and old surveys and destroy the evidence and besides, most insureds keep records of the estimating worksheets with their valuable papers.
I'm waiting for the first NRCA member who knows a little bit about "superior knowledge" to get a subrogation letter for a leak on one of these type repairs authorized by an adjuster and signed of on by a supervisor. The fireworks display should be July the 4th-like.
I recently saw (Name Withheld) hit for about $130,000 to redo a roof they had figured a Spud and Flood on several years backs. It didn't even have to go to appraisal. It just took a look at the worksheet where it said Sweep Back Flood and Re-Gravel X number of squares @ $$.
Again, I'm just here pointing out some serious issues that will sooner or later attract litigation, especially given the arrogant lack of knowledge shown by a few.
Problem is, the roofing industry has always been fairly easy to "kick around". However, as the education level of the roofer increases and the claims abuses grow, that may get to be a VERY slippery slope.
Best wishes.
P.S. Does anyone other than myself find it strange that Allstate changed their gross "on" and net "off" formula to net "on" and net "off" shortly after the complaint to the Texas Department of Insurance was re-opened?
Now, it is a net off and net on with an 8% supposed "price add-on". Don't think that flies either, especially under heavy scrutiny of survey prices, but why change at all? Curious minds want to know. |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/24/2003 18:34:52 |
|
|
|
JWill
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 00:47:05
|
I've read this forum with great interest and have enjoyed the truths and non-truths sprayed all about. I have just a few points to make...
1) As adjusters, we are bound to seek out knowledgeable people in all aspects of our files in order to justify our recommendations.
2) If you are licensed to do your job, that makes you a professional. When a carrier tells you to not include or no pay for items and you comply, your license is in jeopardy. An example, you have wind-damaged tabs, no less than seven, yet more than ten in a Haag specific test square on all slopes. Okay, you have wind damage, we buy the roof yet the carrier says, “do not pay for vents, chimney flashing, step flashing, drip, pipe flashing and skylight kits. Is that a proper repair? Have we indemnified the insured properly? What are the ramifications if this roof leaks and the claim reopens and is specific to a flashing as the source? Should we check our E&O coverage? Do we blame the roofer? Do you think the carrier will step up take the blame if a suit follows? Not likely. You be a hangin’ brother. How many of you that comply with this actually make a log entry as to this improperness to cover your own a_s? None I expect. Did you know that your files are governed by the same laws as the carriers in the states that you work in? I believe that our job is to report the facts of the loss, all aspects.
3) As to granule loss, I to have been on thousands of hail damage inspections and made castles out the granules found in the gutters. Yet with due diligence, was hard pressed to find significant impact marks. But, when talking with the insured and neighbors, they all stated that the hail was dime to quarter size and the few minutes that it fell you could shovel it up. You get back on the roof and following the reported path, ignoring the fact that the insured said it was falling straight down and on all sides, bouncing two to three feet in the air in the yard, you start to noticing that the slopes in the reported path although absent of significant impact marks, have a sort of cancer effect to it. Once your eyes focus, you can see that it appears like something scraped here and there in large swatches. Haag would call it a “manufactures defect”, yet you examine the opposing slope and the granule color is consistent over all. Dare I say that the affected slope is damaged? Should I consider that hundreds of pellets just pummeled this slope and knocked all those granules loose? If I were lying out there on the roof when the storm passed, what would I look like? I don’t have much faith in what Haag has to say anymore, I was present when they performed one of their infamous inspections for hail damage and all they could come up with was, manufacture defects, improper installation, and poor maintenance. Yet they didn’t discount that the vents were damaged. Three other firms preformed the same inspection in the same areas and they found damage. Three out of four that is and the carrier ignored the other findings. Astounding.
4) What qualifies us as “roof inspection experts” anyway? What schools did we attend?
Lon, I like your approach to solving problems, you’re writing style, yes, it’s harsh and entertaining.
Kyle, you keep on, your trying and that counts.
CatDaddy, you take things to seriously, I bet the guys at the dairy queen won’t talk to you anymore.
Clayton, you just keep being Clayton.
Great thread Jennifer.
As for me, I’m going back to bush hogging, plenty of sun and beer.
|
J. Williams |
|
|
|
Buster Cherry
14 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 06:27:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by JWill
2) If you are licensed to do your job, that makes you a professional.
Seriously: Do you really believe that? Does anyone? |
Edited by - Buster Cherry on 10/31/2003 06:29:07 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
