| Author |
 Topic  |
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
 Posted - 04/14/2004 : 23:57:08
|
| Tuckernotis: How much extra are you paying your roofer (in excess of that which the insurance company allowed)for the upgraded shingles? |
Larry Wright |
 |
|
|
Samson
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 02:44:22
|
Tuckernotis,
I am new to hail on roofs (autos used to be my stock & trade). A roofer told me that some cities require drip edge and others don't. He also told me that the decision to tear off the old edging or not was based on the roof's style. He said total hips MIGHT be able to re-use edging but that gables couldn't.
He gave me some plausible reason although I can't recite it now. I think I still have his card and could find out but I was wondering if anyone else had heard that.
The direct damage rationale I'm hearing on edging and vents seems to fail with tar paper/felt. Most storms I've seen might hurt shingles but don't actually do damage to the tar paper. Been there, seen that, got the tee-shirt to prove it, but it still gets replaced. |
Samson |
|
|
|
LMLinson
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 06:05:43
|
| Jim, I know of local codes that require ice and water shield from working in Ohio and Virginia but I am unaware of state requirements. In Virginia we did not replace valley metal, flashing or drip unless it was damaged. |
Edited by - LMLinson on 04/15/2004 06:10:15 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 10:44:32
|
| Jim: I think Minnesota is the only one. A small roofing contractor showed me the advantage of ice shield over metal, this was in the context of call backs on the leak warranty's. He bent the ice shield to make a container that would hold water. Drove a nail through the rubber and it sealed around the nail, convinced me it would not leak or allow seepage, and stated he now gives a 5 year leak warranty with this material, with no valley leaks in three years he has been using material. |
|
|
|
Samson
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 14:02:18
|
Okay, since I didn't remember the reason edging was replaced I called the contractor and then looked at two roofs today to check him out.
He says the reason edging has to be changed is that felt/tar paper goes UNDER the edging in some places on the roof's eaves and gable ends (he claims that is according to ALL codes in every city). Since the nails that hold the edging won't allow the felt/tar paper to be put underneath the metal while iot is still in place, he says it must be either un-nailed and re-nailed AFTER the felt/tar paper is fitted under the metal. He said fascia rot would occur if it weren't done this way but would take several years to show up. Says the labor/man hours to save the old metal and not bend it and then the filling of the old holes costs more than replacing it with new.
I told him about the "directly damaged theory" and he mentioned the felt/tar paper wasn't directly damaged either (as I had stated in an earlier post).
He also added valleys and roof vents to the list for the same reasons (tar paper/felt was required underneath and nail holes left in the valley).
Sounded reasonable the first time he explained it and sounds the same now. Anybody looked up codes? I didn't have access to a code book. |
Samson |
|
|
|
Todd Summers
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 14:36:33
|
| I know that some cities in Colorado require it at drip edges, rakes and valleys. Some even require that you build a cricket behind a chimney, if there is not one now and you are reroofing. |
|
|
|
Tuckernotis
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 14:37:19
|
Thanks Sam, that's a very good explanation. I'll look and see how mine is put together.
|
|
|
|
Todd Summers
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 14:42:10
|
| Samson, good points, however, filling nail holes is ridiculous. Trust me , NO-one does that on a roof deck! |
|
|
|
Samson
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 18:06:17
|
Hey Todd,
I agree about it being a lot of work to fill nail holes and that nobody would probably do it but I don't think I would want MY valleys left in place with the old nail holes penetrating them and the same holes in the tar paper/felt, too. Valleys carry a LOT of water. I would also want my tar paper/felt to be changed out or laid over with new on the whole roof. The contractor said that was required on all tear off jobs in every case where the roof was removed.
P.S. I just went out and looked at my vent pipes and they are the lead ones - not the rubber ones. From the looks of them, I doubt if they would hold up to a claw hammer yanking nails out or knocking the old hard caulking off. |
Samson |
|
|
|
Phil
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 18:42:55
|
| valley metal should be replaced on the project. why? Because nails penetrated it and it is where the majority of water runs. Standard codes depending on state are no nails from 6-12" from any valley centerline. Almost every roofer has a few that break this rule on every roof. Generally not the biggest problem until the roof is past 50% of it's life. If you live some where that has ice damming or ice build occassionally occurs you should force your insurance co to pay for valley or warranty those areas's. drip edge does not have tobe paid for unless damaged or over a layer of shingle's.Remember when all those shingles come up the valley's are riddled with holes. so are the chimney flashings. the water is not as big a deal, but can be. Use ice shield to cover back pan of chimney. Ice shield is available in every state including florida. It is also a water barrier and requiered in some hurricane areas over the entire roof. Insurance usually pay's for valley but seldom drip edge and some carriers pay for chimney and drip.north dakota also requires ice shield as code, but did not inforce it in the Bismark 2002 storm because of pressure from the carriers.Force your insurance to pay for valley. or find three trades, a general contractor and hit them with o/p.check out bad faith on the net,insurance claim denial, insurance company fraud, insurance claim help. Iceshield may be called water barrier. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 19:09:49
|
| Phil, ice shield is not common at all in south Louisiana. I don't know about Florida or any of the other states along the gulf coast but I've seen lots of roofs in LA and never seen ice shield on any of them. If it isn't there now, it isn't going to be paid for. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 21:32:54
|
| I would never write a new roof without replacing drip edge or valleys, and I do not remember a carrier ever questioning it. Now of course if the current roof has shingled valleys or no drip edge then tuff luck Mr./Mrs. Insured you can pay for it. This would also go for flashing of any kind. If its going to be disturbed when you replace the shingles then you do it right and replace what is necessary, as long as that had it to begin with. |
|
|
|
khromas
USA
103 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 21:53:39
|
Phil - take a 'chill pill'!
The agressive nature of your post makes it clear that your listed occupation skews more to the 'roofing' than it does to the 'adjusting'. Ms. Gray has done a lot of homework in order to become an educated consumer and that is her best approach. Talk of 'forcing' the carrier gets nowhere fast.
The issue of a valley is not always clear-cut. I have seen many homes on the lower end of the cost scale where there was no metal valley used. A run of roll roofing was sent down the valley solely to provide underlying support for the shingles and they were installed as a closed valley application. Works perfectly fine.
My personal opinion on some of the questions raised is to look at the roof as a total package, assembled using various components. If something is re-usable (ie: not damaged) - re-use the sucker! Felt does NOT fall into that category because the process of removing the shingles damages the felt. There is no issue of contributory negligence on the part of the roofer because the industry accepted method of removal will cause that to happen.
What I find interesting is some people tend to take the attitude that 'if insurance is involved, you can go for the whole enchilada' and screw the cost! With the rising deductibles (State Farm just raised my Windstorm-Hurricane-Hail to 2%, >$4000) there will be more and more people that will have to do a little more negotiation with a contractor when they have damage. (I think I recited this example on another forum, but here it is again as a recap.) A roofing salesman and I climb a roof together here in Houston and I agreed to replace the entire roof. As we were about to get on the ladder to get down I turned to him and asked him to prepare an estimate for consideration and I would look at it. I said "Prepare it like insurance was not involved but that you were competing for the job." I caught him off-guard because his response was "But we charge more if it's insurance!"
Why is that? That company will send the same crews out to do the work, buy the materials at the same supplier AND PROVIDE THE EXACT SAME INSURANCE FOR THEIR WORKERS! (Probably NONE!) The issue is the size of the profit margin. Nothing more and nothing less. That is why the first question out of of the salesman mouth to a homeowner will always be "Will insurance be paying for the damage?"
Who pays for this attitude? WE ALL DO AS CONSUMERS! (If you happen to be well enough off to be self-insured - you aren't wasting time here!)
(This is what happens when there are no storms and everybody is bored to death, we beat this issues to death!)
|
Kevin Hromas |
|
|
|
LarryW
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2004 : 22:05:03
|
Tuckernotis: In absence of a reply to my earlier post, I'll just assume the answer is $0.00. If that is indeed the case, then I would assume you intend to reimburse your insurer the fair market value of that upgrade to your roof. To do otherwise would make you unquestionably unscrupulous. In your opening post to this thread you accused your initial adjuster of having been unscrupulous, apparently for having an opinion different from that of your roofer. Believe it or not, adjusters are entitled to an opinion and voicing such does not make them unscrupulous. Knowingly cheating anyone, including an insurance company, out of $ is unscrupulous. But, I am sure either my previously stated assumption is accurate or you have agreed to pay extra for the upgrade. Good luck with the roofing process.
|
Larry Wright |
Edited by - LarryW on 04/15/2004 22:12:01 |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2004 : 22:30:16
|
There are a few reasons I can think of why I would want to charge more of an insurance project. Thier frigg'n so complicated. So many more things to deal with to get to the point of collecting the final payment. I've been doing this for some time and I can say with some amount of authority that thiers a big differance between a cash deal and an insurance deal.
Just to list a couple things that normally are not involved with a "Yellow Pages contract"
Lien waivers from mortage companies. Inspections from Mortage companies. Completion certificates required now my most insurance companies for our clients to get depreciation in order to make final payment to contractor. Invoice to adjusters and in many cases resending documents more then once. Check endorsments, re-inspections additional phone calls. The list goes on. From an economic stand point time = money so If I have to spend much more time then I deserve to be paid extra for the extra time not ordinarilly spent completing a roofing, or siding or any project involving insurance.
Asing a contractor to prepair an estimate like insurance isn't involved is silly in my opinion, becuase when insurnace is involved things are much more complicated. Economics dictate that you can't charge the same price and do more work, you won't be in business long if you continue to do that. Hmm, perhaps that's why after two or three years I never see those contractors around that some adjusters tell me they'll to the work at the insruance rates no questions asked. If the contractor is stupid enough to prepair his estimate like that he won't be in business long afterwards.
Fact is it cost's more money to restore some one's home when insurance is involved and I challange any one to come to my side if you haven't. It's not as simple as just giving an estimate, do the job, get paid in full. It never happens that way ever.
khromas is it that you just think roofers are a greedy bunch? perhaps and perhaps that why you asked this roofer to just do it that way. Well I can agree with you some roofers do think that becuase insurance is paying that it's open season to charge as much as they like, that's stupid and any contractor practicing business that way is going to find out fast he's not going to get any contracts. The company I work for charges typically 15-20% more on average for insurance work, not becuase were greedy but becuase it takes more work administratively, it takes much longer to get paid in full which equates to time = money. And contrary to what you might believe we get paid what we ask for becuase it's not in one bit unreasonable. |
Edited by - DEMIGOD on 04/16/2004 22:32:53 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Roof being replaced, other charges.
Forum Locked
