| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
TomS
USA
32 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2003 : 03:39:03
|
A QUESTION HAS ARISEN AND I FOR THE LIFE OF ME CANNOT REMEMBER NOR FIND THE ANSWER.
IS THERE OR IS THERE NOT, A STATUE IN "TEXAS" ONLY!, ABOUT LAY OVER OF SHINGLES.
FOR SOME REASON SINCE 1993, I HAVE THOUGHT OR HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY CARRIERS TO TEAR DOWN TO DECK EXISTING "DAMAGED" SHINGLES.
I HAVE A "CLAIM" AND THE MANAGER IS QUESTIONING ME AS TO LAY OVER VS TEAR OFF. OTHER INCIDENTALS ARE THAT "HAIL, DENTED, COPPER CHIMNEY CAPS, VENTS, ETC ARE RECOMMENDED BEING REPLACED, IS IT UP TO CARRIER TO EITHER REPLACE OR NOT OR OFFER A APPEARANCE ALLOWANCE OR JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE, AFTER 30 YEARS, I HAVE SUDDENLY GOT LOST.
ANYONE GOT ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW I CONCLUDE.
YOU CAN EMAIL ME DIRECT WITH THE CHASTISING, AS I EXPECT IT, DONT FORGET, HALF-HIEMERS DISEASE!!--TM5134@AOL.COM |
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 11:05:44
|
Tom,
The federal BOCA code changed in 2002 and now only allows a total of two (2) roofs on any structure. SO, if you now have 2 you have to remove all to the deck.
The concept of overlay, while saving the installer, (ergo the carrier) money is misleading, in that the secondary roof has little or no solid support and can be damaged by smaller, less dense hail in the future, and it also is building in a problem.
You know after all these years that the words "Appearance allowance" are in No contract. (Personally, I have never used that tactic)
As the contract calls for repair or replacement of an item that has sustained a "direct physical loss" such as a vent, flashing, capping etc. it is owed IMHO, because the contract is one of indemnity, in that the insured is protected against financial loss.
Surely, a proper inspection of the property, by a professional home inspector, will verify the damages, and may in fact, cause the insured to loose money.
Whatever direction you go in, based on your instructions, please be sure to get it in "Writing" and annotate the log file accordingly, just CYA.
|
 |
|
|
Roof_Dr_Sr
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 04:28:52
|
Dear Sir,
A layover has it's place in the industry. Most of the time it is used when someone needs a new roof but doesn't have insurance to help them pay. I never do a layover on top of a three tab shingle with another three tab shingle. It doesn't lay flat and just looks bad in general. However, I have done many roofs by laying over a 30-year Tamko metric shingle because you can do a butt job and it lays down flat and looks good. In fact, The Atlas Corp. told me a few years ago the "R" factor would increase by 12 pts by doing this. Don't know how true that really is... To answer your question, it is my understanding most insurance companies remove all layers down to the deck when roofing in Texas. This is a suggestion by the Ins. Commissioner, not a law. When it comes to a roof with wood shingles under comp, it should all be removed, new decking installed and shingles put back. Most of the time the old wood shingles will not hold a nail properly. Good Luck & have a nice day.. The Roof Dr. Sr. |
Roof Dr.Sr. |
|
|
|
Cecil
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 07:07:34
|
Most areas will allow a nail over one existing layer. Slowly but surely the incidence of seeing 3 and 4 layers is slowing down because of these codes.
A new term being used now is PWI. Payment When Incurred. Estimating the nail over and including the tear off and felt as a PWI item. I encourage the insured to have the old roof torn off and make sure the insured understands how he can collect the PWI items.
The above brings up the importance of knowing what and how the previous claim was paid when inspecting for new damage. If an insured was paid to R&R the roof and then nailed over leaving the old layer there, and the new claim reveals hail damage and the code requires the two layers be torn off, you can only recommend the R&R of one layer. The insured will have to pay for the bottom layer himself. |
|
|
|
sbeau4014
USA
53 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2004 : 09:01:50
|
| TomS What you are probably refering to in Tx was back at the time you referenced, the insurance commissioner at the time came out with a ruling that said basically in his opinion all roof surfaces have to be taken off to the decking as the roofs are considered debris and therefore are covered under the policy as debris removal. There were references in the ruling pertaining to multiple surfaces, etc. It also said that any insurance carrier who does not comply with this ruling is subject to all the neat fines and penalties of the recently enacted House Bill 2 that we just got in Texas. This ruling was sent to me as I was in a property claim mgt position at a carrier in the state. We had some pow wows about it as to whether the commish had the power to do this, etc but I know that at that time our co and many other chose to remove roofing down to the decking. Having recently pulled out of personal lines in Texas before that it didn't have a great impact on us besides education the adjusters and IA's that worked for us on the few claims that it did come up on. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
LAY OVER VERSUS REPLACEMENT--TEXAS ONLY
Forum Locked
