| Author |
 Topic  |
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
 Posted - 04/20/2004 : 14:08:17
|
Guys I read through the "Is granular loss considered hail damage" thread. WOW to many pages to read!
Opinion seem to vary alot and I'm in hopes to not re-open a can or worms. But a couple things I didn't notice.
Does no one know that most if not all of an asphalt singles fire rating is in the granuals? At least that's what I have been told by two certainteed reps and a GAF rep. I would imagine that if a hail storm cuase accelerated granual loss that also would excelerate the shingles ability to resist fire. The fire rating is not designed to keep the fire inside the house it's designed to inhibit the fire from cathing when a fire at A housejumps next door to B house.
Isn't it true that all those folks who factor the risk's consider how many fire hydrants are near the home they are insuring? I heard that somewhere don't know if it true or not. But lets say for instance it is true. Could we not therefore say that now the risk is elevated because of accelerated granular loss becuase of a hail storm, decreasing the fire rating of the shingle?
Wouldn't it stand to reason that there is a loss there to include increased risk? Just like when the singles are bruised?
Just some thoughts.
PS: Haag does state that granular loss exposing the mat as damage.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/SLS_WAF_NWP/21SLS/abstracts/45858.htm
When you arrive at this page click on the: "View Extended Abstract PDF link" to read the report. |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 14:37:19
|
DemiGod, whoever or whatever you are (as you stated the other day you were not a roofer), and whether you seek worms or that can to put them in; you are becoming just another one in the line that followed Lennie The Roofer (most eloquent of all), Reconman, and others along our quickly diluting trails.
Based on what you have said, along with some understanding of elements associated with 'risk'; it would not "stand to reason that there is a loss there to include increased risk ....".
Why don't you start a poll and see what other roofers think about this? I'm sure you will get more than a 12% action ratio to hits. Better yet, think of the marketing (a.k.a. fear-mongering) your types can do to asphalt roof homeowners; as you attempt to sell reduced risks of fire, the security blanket found from a canopy of newly laid shingles, at only 4 to 8 times the cost of an annual insurance premium. Watch out for your competition though, from the hemp shingle manufacturers and homeowners and neighbourhoods with such product. Their life expectancy is about 30 years, but when they burn - it is slow and with a soothing aroma that permeates the neighbourhood. |
 |
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 15:03:28
|
CCarr,
Listen, you started the thread and it was closed becuase it got off topic. The moderator plainly said that the topic could be continued. So to not label me as one falling in line with the others. I think I bring a valid point to ponder. Those tiny little ceramic coated rocks are a componant of the shingle that makes up the fire rating, and as a matter of FACT they are the FIRST line of defence against a fire. All I was asking or maybe I didn't ask clear enough was if an event other then normal wear causes excessive and accelerated granual loss, decreasing the fire resisting capabilities of the shingle, whouldn't that, couldn't that be considered a loss of some sorts?
Ok so you don't feel it's not a loss. No need to place me in the diluting trails of others who have come and gone. I just wanted to know. Also about that Haag report, every one cites them as the authority on what is and isn't hail damage but it seems to me based on the report I read they can not decide either about granual loss.
I am not presenting my opinion as authoritative becuase I'm not qualified, and I suspect niether are you. Are you? I just presented what I found and what I think to be reasonable logic for dicussion.
Thats all.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 15:15:33
|
DG, you misunderstood, just a little bit, my first paragraph of my previous post.
Notwithstanding that, the answer is still, no, and that is just my opinion on the question / issue raised in your opening post.
And, to keep peace in the playground, let me be quick to confirm your suspect notion that I am not qualified; regardless of the measuring stick of your choice. |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 15:18:47
|
| DEMIGOD <------checks his stick. Yup with in normal limits! wheew :P |
|
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 15:37:32
|
| Roy, does the "C" in CADO stand for (C)ontractor? |
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 17:04:49
|
| John? I guess you have issue with a (C)ontractor visiting and posting on the forums? |
|
|
|
ALANJ
USA
159 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 20:13:55
|
| Name calling and finger pointing. A jury only gets to hear the facts which are admited into evidence. With that in mind, can we just act like adults and stick to the facts. My roofing expert can beat up your roofing expert. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 21:20:25
|
Since granular loss is back on a unlocked thread, let me ask a question.
Went to inspect a hail claim last week, with the DOL being July 2003. Showed up to find the roofer already on the roof, to me that is not a problem. I usually don't mind if the roofer is there as long as they stay out of my way so I don't miss anything. Plus I don't have to lug out my ladder. So I get on the roof, and find that the roofer has already circled about 12 marks in a "test square". At first look, the marks appeared to be hail. When I looked at the rest of that slope and the other slope I could not find any other marks...not a one. I expressed my concern to the roofer, he stated that he was taught to find soft spots on shingles with his thumb and then rub the granulars off. I was thinking to myself "WHAT".
If in 8 months the "hail marks" did not reveal themself after being subjected to large amounts of rain, ice, and snow I would consider the roof not hail damaged. And now this roofer comes around and exposes the mat in a dozen places.
My question is what should I do as far as the roofer... report the roofing company or just forget about it and move on. Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 21:32:22
|
Czar,
I don't know who tought him that but it's very silly imho. Perhaps you should have asked him right then to show you more damage outside of the test square, and before the starts rugging his finger prints away, you feel the spot he's talking about. Just to give you an idea of what he's calling a hail impact spot.
Czar the question I pose to you, what are your feelings about what should be done about it. If he's just been taught wrong that's one thing, but if he's doing it on purpose to get a roof bought I'd consider that fraud.
Now as I was typing it occured to me that he's probably been told that the way adjuster quantify replacement is by how many hits they find in the test square. So, he doing you a service just did your job for you, with the precept that you will automatically agree with his findings and replace the roof. LOL. or not.
So what did you say to him, and what did you say to the home owner. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 21:37:03
|
Sounds to me like you have a roofer that has vandalized a roof. Was there any evidence anywhere else on the property of hail damage? Metal vents, a/c coils, siding, anything? If not I would advise the insured the roofer did the damage, not the hail.
I met a roofer today that pointed out any and all blemishes on the roof but no hail. Chimney flashings, vents, a/c coils were untouched. Not a single hail hit on the roof. I informed him that none of what he circled was hail damage and he said he's been doing this for 15 years and he knows what hail damage looks like. I told him if this is the way he does it, then he's been doing it wrong for 15 years and got off the roof. An hour later the agent called me and said I was rude to the roofer. Nothing mentioned about the roofer being rude by wasting my time. Bottom line is if a roofer tells me the sky is blue, I'll go outside and look and if he tells me the sun will rise tomorrow I won't believe him until 8:00 am. |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 21:47:26
|
Demigod:
I didn't have a chance to speak to the homeowner about it because as usual the roofer was going to stay until I was gone. When I aksed him what he ment about rubbing his finger across a soft spot, he got down on his hands and knees and rubbed another spot on a shingle bald to the mat. This isn't the first time that I have noticed this ploy happen. Last summer in Columbus I did a re-inspect on a house that I first saw no damage. When I went back to re-inspect you could tell that a random number of shingles had been rubbed by what appeared to be a finger. I would agree that it is fraud, just asking what everyone else would do.
As far as a test square, I find this process of measurement of damage to be unfair to the insured and a practice that is over used by both roofers and adjusters alike. |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 21:50:19
|
Czar,
Why do you find a test square unfair?
PS: Check your pm please |
|
|
|
Czar
USA
66 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 22:02:36
|
Kile:
There was some light denting to the a/c fins and siding but this storm was pea sized hail. There is no question that hail hit the area, but when the only hail looking marks are in the test square, I think we have a problem. I am thinking about throwing it back in the carriers lap and let them decide what steps to take.
Demigod:
My problem with a "test square" is this....
Lets say you have a 10 square west facing slope. The adjuster says well Mr. roofer I need to find 5 hits per square to warrant replacement and I can only find 4 per square. So if you do a little math you come up with 40 hits over the west slope. Would you agree that this slope is damaged and is in need of replacement, I would. This only gets worse when you need to find 8, 9, 10, or more hits per square. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 22:04:54
|
| If you can find 4, you can find 5. Nobody says the test square has to be a "square" it just has to be 100 sq. feet. If you only get 4 on the first one, try another one. |
|
|
|
DEMIGOD
99 Posts |
Posted - 04/20/2004 : 22:10:55
|
Czar,
What part of the city was this inspection? I know that in some area the hail was up too 2 inches in size. Perhaps Westerville or southern parts of Hilliard?
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Re-Opening a can of worms
Forum Locked
