| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
 Posted - 01/08/2004 : 17:43:33
|
| Joe, I am aware that the paint spill would be covered under the all risk policy. I was trying to make a funny, but it didn't work. I feel, however, that the negelgence factor of the painter should be pursued first and if all fails, claim should be made under the policy, then subrogate if possible. As far as the roof, I can think of nothing that would cover the nail pop outs. It is not consequential, nor is it ensuing, perhaps it is shinglequake.[:D] |
 |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 19:47:59
|
First of all, I agree with other posters that ceiling damage from nail pops is not consequential damage or ensuing damage from the peril of hail.
I think an insured can and no doubt should pursue a conversation with the roofer urging the roofer to assume responsibility or liability for the repair of interior ceiling damage. A sophisticated insured might well have requested and required a copy of a roofer's liability insurance policy prior to entering into a repair contract, and would be wise to request that the roofer report the loss to the roofer's liability or installation floater policies for a primary insurance response.
However, notwithstanding contractor's liability, under the HO-3 (but not the HO-1 and HO-2 which are named peril), I do believe that coverage would exist as the damage is sudden and accidental and not otherwise excluded.
In handling this claim, the adjuster could recommend payment and investigate and report subrogation possibilities without conflict with the HO-3 policy provisions.
I do think it is an interesting question as to whether the roofer's actions would constitute negligence (under subrogation) as it is a fairly standard practice among roofing crews to drop shingles on a roof rather than gently stack them. The key would be finding an engineer, competent roofer or other expert witness who would assert that the roofers acts constituted negligence.
Under the scenario of the vaulted roof, which I think is the more likely scenario in which to witness such nail pops, I have in the past urged the insured to require the roofer insert a provision in the contract of roof replacement to have the roofer assume this liability, although I have never known whether or not that happened after the file was closed and paid.
|
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 20:41:19
|
Tom,
One thing that needs to be considered by the insured is which path of pursuit would yield the greatest payment and which path would be the quickest. The liability property damage paid by the tortfeasor would be on an ACV basis...whereas, the payment under the HO would be RCV subject to recoverable depreciation if loss is greater than $2,500.00 and a deductible. Depending on the age of the risk and the applicable depreciation, the insured might be better off collecting on the HO policy and letting the Company pursue the tortfeasor. Successful recovery would mean additional $'s back to insured. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 21:09:39
|
| Joe, excellent observation and post! |
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 21:11:25
|
Have the insured contact a professional advocate to assist him in avoiding this potential exposure for being shortchanged by insurers.
He should consider shifting the burden of increased cost to the responsible party, the insurer. The handling adjuster should consider increasing the cost per square to allow the roofing contractor for the roofer’s special handling expense to avoid the nail pops. Many of the roof workers are not trained to do gentle roof work. Perhaps bringing up one shingle per trip could avoid the anticipated hazard of laborers dropping the bundles on the roof, as is the standard procedure on a normal roof system. If necessary the number of shingles carried up could be cautiously increased for economy sake. Neither the insured or the roofing contractor should be required to absorb any increased cost for the additional sums necessary to avoid the sheetrock nail pops or any other damage cost that could be avoided by the roofing contractor exercising higher than normal standards of care. It is also possible that up-grading the roof system may be required by the permitting authority if the roof system is too weak to support roof bundle drops. Coverage for this increased could possibly be found under ordinance of law provisions if included in the policy.
William S Cook
Public Adjuster
|
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 21:26:53
|
| Yeah, we are seeing how the advocates work here in the Ft. Lauderdale area. Estimates inflated to the extent, you can only laugh. But, we have run into two fairly knowledgeable advocates, often referred to as Public Adjusters. We are so ready to go home to sanity. |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 21:51:17
|
As JimF pointed out the expert witness will determine who is the responsible party. There is no increased cost to stocking a roof properly. AND " trained to do gentle roof work??????" I'm thinking that if their slamming bundles or ridge stacking like their building the great wall of china then the roofer is liable.
|
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 22:02:51
|
| Actually Chuck, while the expert witness might increase one party's chances for success, the ultimate decision on responsibility could well lie with the judge, jury and courts (and the other party's expert witness)! |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 22:24:39
|
I think the correct peril we are dealing with is 'inherent vice'.
Anytime you have any contractor do any work on your house, the contractor always manages to either do it slightly wrong, or damage something in the process. This is a natural state of affairs and completely normal. Something is always going to get screwed up. Bill Cooks expression, 'normal standards of care', means that when it comes to contractors, their standards are lower than proper and prudent persons.
Therefore, as it is the 'inherent vice' of contractors to always 'bugger up' the job, the Insured must always expect these kinds of things to happen. No coverage!
Thppppt! |
Edited by - Ghostbuster on 01/08/2004 22:26:03 |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 22:27:56
|
| Not 2 minutes ago I was mentally reviewing my last post and realized that infact the courts decision, not the witness, would be the final resting place. Ya just can't slip anything by Jim |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 07:35:22
|
William,
Have been working down in Miami again??????? Or was that your evil twin that just posted???? |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 11:50:43
|
I think Ghost is headed in the right direction.
I am going to take it a little bit further with:
[SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS
2.
C. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
(2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction.
If the roofing crew elects out of free will to slam the bundles down, they are not exercising the proper care (adequate workmanship).
They could be held liable for the damages.
But in the roofer's defense, I have also seen inadequate framing lacking the proper bracing that allowed too much flex in the rafters, which passed on the stress down to walls and ceilings below. Sometimes a roof framing system has been stressed with too many layers in the past as well.
I have seen many a roofing contract that boldy and specifically disclaims any liability for nail pops.... |
|
|
|
TomS
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 13:23:25
|
Slamming the shingles could indeed be considered "Falling objects"
< > Yes < > No
Thank You |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2004 : 15:12:59
|
Tom, let's play fair with your poll:
Damaging shingles with a ball peen hammer could be considered "Falling Objects".
[ ]YES [ ]NO |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2004 : 10:50:50
|
| I have vaulted ceilings in 2 rooms. I have 40 years liabilty and property claims experience. I did not have AN insurance claim, but needed a new roof(wood shingle redeck job) My roofer buddy gave me the pro discount, but "NO POPPED NAIL HEADS" I agreed. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
ceiling drywall damage during roofing process,do
Forum Locked
