| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2003 : 07:43:47
|
Yes! YES! I believe!
I also believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the sanctity of vendors who will put a total stranger on stand-by, and the Loch Ness Monster.
I'm a believeing kind of guy. |
 |
|
|
JWill
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2003 : 08:34:29
|
| But you're special kind of guy GB. I believe in those things also and especially, "hereafter". |
J. Williams |
Edited by - JWill on 10/31/2003 08:38:24 |
|
|
|
mudclod
1 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2003 : 20:40:57
|
I am new to adjusting and only have a limited amount of history with roofing, so yes I have a lot to learn, but unless I knew the roof was the first ever on the house (fairly new home), I don't see how the amount of granules in the gutter are a good indicater of damage to the roof. An area with a lot of dust, say from lawn mowing etc. you could have a lot of dirt in the gutters. Is this a method common for telling the amount of damage to shingles?
Thanks
Wayne |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2003 : 20:45:15
|
| Of course not. Granule loss is an every day occurrence. Roof training includes the ability to determine covered cause of loss damage. |
|
|
|
deward1
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 07:30:02
|
| If the roof you are looking at was your home and you do not have insurance to pay your claim would you reroof the house? If you can honestly say yes -- then buy it. If you would not then you do not have a claim for a hail damaged roof. This is a simple ethics question? Indentations seen only in the "perfect setting" does not qualify as a hail damaged roof. If all such roofs were replaced, soon hail damage would go the same direction as flood damage. Common sense and ethics will settle any doubt in your mind. |
Edited by - deward1 on 11/09/2003 07:34:58 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 09:06:02
|
I don't understand what you're saying. I see your point, but you will never sell to an insured and certainly not to a jury that these hard to find but existing impact marks are not damage.
What about hail damage to a car? It doesn't effect the intended purpose of the car. It still runs. It gets you where you need to be. Some would even say that like a golfball the dimples make it more aerodynamic. But insurance pays to fix it. The same goes for a roof. If the hail damage is detectable then it's damaged.
I often feel the same way when I see a roofer with his eyes 6 inches from the surface of the roof trying to find some hail damage to show me. If it's that hard to find it isn't damaged. But we have to find the line between that situation and the no-brainers where you can see the damage from the ground. It's a tough call. I'd much rather work baseball sized hail than mixed hail or the fringe areas where it is anywhere from peas to golfballs. Those areas where it all depends on the age and brand of the roof. Those are the worst.
I can't use my own standard of would you re-roof the house or not because I'm not all that picky and I'm really practical. Most insureds would never accept what I personally think is a fair settlement. |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 10:20:58
|
One, the insurance contract on a car or anything else has nothing to do with any insurance contract on anything else. Drawing a comparision between two different insurance contracts is a waste of time and misleading.
Two, the key here is that the contract calls for direct physical damage. Once direct physical damage is found and demonstrated the proper repair of that damage is owed.
Of note is the fact that insurance contracts are unilateral, contracts of adhesion, are allegatory in nature and the law of ambiguity applies. All courts construe unilateral contracts against the party that wrote the contract.
All that is needed is to discover adequate evidence of damage within a 100 sq ft area and demonstrate it to a reinspector and estimate the cost of repairing the damage. Most all carriers would rather pay for the repair than to fight. |
|
|
|
deward1
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 12:27:43
|
| Kile, I didn't mean to not pay a legitimate claim. I am saying that I have been on many roofs with absolutely no damage and every roof on every side of me has been "bought" by some adjuster. Some I am sure had damage, but most did not. This is the same reasoning that so many companies have for paying a roof claim on a flat rate instead of on dollars. I and you both know that there are unscrupulous adjusters that pay for a roof so they can bill more. They look for and often find damage that is not there. It is easier and quicker and I sleep better to come off a roof with no damage and say to the insured, "Are you ever the lucky one, there is no hail damage to your roof. So you won't have those nails flying when you mow your lawn." I have said this so many times it is second nature, and it is true. It requires 10 minutes to CWOP the file. If I find damage then I feel good about that. The people probably needed a roof. (As I do now- 50 sq. 360lb. thank God for this storm, now I can afford it.) I once worked a large storm through central Tx for LM out of San Antonio for 5 months. When I finished and went into SA the mgr asked me how I could run as many claims as I did, found no damage on 90% of them and did not have one complaint, Ins co. or homeowner? I just do what my conscience tells me is right. Granule loss is not a reason to pay a hail claim unless it damages the shingles. Finding hail damage is not a guessing game, either it is there or it is not there. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 14:14:53
|
While in theory I agree with you, it isn't always black and white. If it were that easy there would be no stress in this job at all. Haven't you ever been on a black fiberglass roof where the vents have huge dents in them and you've paid for every other roof in the neighborhood but the damage is difficult or nearly impossible to find? Or what about a roof that there are no vents on in the same neighborhood but the granules are so loose that there are bald spots everywhere. That may have been caused by hail, but the roof could have very well looked like this before the storm too. It just isn't always that simple. You quite often have to make a judgement call.
On the other hand, have you ever been on a roof that has old hail damage and a prior claim. You pull the old claim and that roof was paid for 10 years ago and never replaced. It has managed to survive without a leak and all this hail damage on it. It is now 20 years old and still not leaking. It always amazes me that a roof that we thought was totaled has managed to live out it's useful life and serve it's intended purpose even with the disadvantage of being "damaged" by hail. After seeing all of this, if I was paid for hail damage on my own roof I think I would just put the money in the bank and wait until the roof "needs" to be replaced. If I plan to sell the house in 5 years I'd rather wait and replace it when I put it on the market than try to sell it later with a 5 yr old roof. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 11/09/2003 14:19:39 |
|
|
|
SeizeOWisdom
25 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 14:18:54
|
| Kile, what about those roofs where the vents were not replaced when the roof was last covered and the vent hail damage was from a prior hailstorm? It happens you know. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 14:21:00
|
Yep, I know it does, that just makes our job all the less black and white. Once again, it quite often comes down to a judgement call.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every roof is a head scratcher. I'd say 95% of them are yes or no. It's the 5% that keep you up at night. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 11/09/2003 14:27:41 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 20:29:46
|
| Charcoal (black) is very hard to find damage, it is hit you just cant see it, get on the light colored house on each side and you will convince yourself. If the shingles were not sealed you could feel the bruise from the bottom side. I just tell them my camera will not show the hits, and I cant total and my estimate will reflect this... keep it several years for evidence. Hagg say,s 33% of the weight of the shingle is in the crushed slate spayed on to give the shingle a color that has eye appeal. Now if you have 3 inches in a coffee can from the front slope in the gutters and the front slope is 15 sqs, this does not equate to "hail damage" Crushed slate loss is a salesmans pitch. Try feeling with your thumb and index finger. Old hail is easy to spot its grey and has several years of red dust in most parts. Don,t send any hail loss to me that you camara will not show the hits. Walk around the house and look for splatter marks on the old oxidize paint on the AC and meter box etc. Its easy to see really no mystery at all. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 21:25:55
|
| Trader, if your barometer is a picture of a hit, then I can pay for just about any roof I get on. It isn't hard to take a polaroid that "looks" like hail damage. The hard part is getting what is actually hail damage to show up on a polaroid. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
