Forums

Posted By dcmarlin on 12 Aug 2009 09:43 PM

Tell me what ya'll think.

I went on an inspection today for a claim with a 2008 date of loss.  There are no coverage issues. 

There are twenty-five buildings, partial two-story, with two layers of t-locks and 40-50 squares per building.  I estimate the shingles are about 12 years old and in average condition.   The top layer is an off-white color.  There is a total of about 1100 + squares of surface area.  Each building has an average of 6 to 10 wind and/or hail damaged shingles over the entire roof.  There is maybe three to four squares of damage in total.

As most of you know, they have not manufactured t-locks for about 5 years.   There are some roofers that have them but they are almost impossible to find.  If not for the material availability issue, I would estimate a minimum charge repair to each roof and do not think any roofer would argue.  If all the roofs have to be replaced, we are talking about $400,000.00.

Do you think it is feasible to pay a roofer extra to carefully remove the top layer of t-locks from one of the roofs and use the salvaged shingles to repair the other 24 buildings?  The roofer can apply "pookie" in the nail holes and use the same holes.  I have never proposed this before but think it may be an acceptable alternative.  I understand no roofer will give any warranty but they do not have one now.

Feedback?

I worked in Rapid City, SD last year and the carrier replaced the entire roof on all the lightly damaged T-Locks. However, they are still available in Canada. 6-10 hits per roof is very minor. I agree on the warranty issue but the two layers may be a problem. Your proposal Do you think it is feasible to pay a roofer extra to carefully remove the top layer of t-locks from one of the roofs and use the salvaged shingles to repair the other 24 buildings?  seems reasonable but may not work in Minnesota. Let us know the outcome. Most hail claims are boring but you have a goodun' .

 

Posted By okclarryd on 15 Aug 2009 08:30 PM
I think this is referred to as "Adjusting"

Will the Okie please explain the above to a Florida Cracker?  30 words or less.....mono sylables too... I'm knda slow. 

As an adjuster...........ooooops. Too many syllables.

Canadian T Locks are metric. They are slightly larger.

Posted By dcmarlin on 21 Aug 2009 11:21 AM
Regardless, we found a local roofer who has a stockpile of t-locks. He went out the the site and sent me a repair proposal for $21,000.00. Now, I just have to settle it!

Wow - you da' man!!  Well done. 

You saved the carrier a chunk-O-change without cutting corners on the repair.  Awesome.

I have a couple more things to say about the removal for re-use.  First, as some of you know, I have been a general contractor remodeling and renovating houses with about half of my work being insurance claims based.  I have also been restoring and rebuilding cars and trucks for about 47 years as a hobby and out of necessity when I had a fleet of 6 or 7 to maintain and repair everytime one of my 5 kids wrecked one.  (They had to pitch in).  I will do a fender replacement or pull an engine any day over trying to remove shingles in such a way that they can be re-used, because it is almost an impossible task.

However, there is what I believe to be a much larger issue involved that has not been brought up - liability insurance for the contractor who attempts it and e&o insurance for the adjuster who dictates this type of repair.  Although I have never seen it done, I can say with 99% confidence, that if a roofer were to install used shingles, and a storm came up that damaged them in any way so as to allow water into the building, the contractor's liability for completed coverage is going to be used, and if the insured is still not satisfied, his lawyer will probably add the adjuster and insurance company to the suit.  I would never attempt this (remove and re-use) as a contractor nor as an adjuster because I know the difficulty of doing shingle repairs, and believe that doing so might constitute negligence by even attempting it, with a good chance that my liability carrier might deny the completed coverage claim as it was not done in compliance with industy standards.

I still agree with the others that a search needs to be made for the shingles, and look in Canada and contact every roofing salvage yard that buy leftovers.  If I was doing this on T&E, I would send in a report estimating the time it will take and get approval to proceed with the search.

Posted By rickhans on 22 Aug 2009 02:19 AM

I still agree with the others that a search needs to be made for the shingles, and look in Canada and contact every roofing salvage yard that buy leftovers. 
 

He found them.

Look a couple posts up "we found a local roofer who has a stockpile of t-locks".

Steve, those Sheriff Goslin shingles were mentioned at our orientation, but I haven't run into them personally.  I think he said they were diamond shaped. 

99% of what I am seeing in Michigan are ancient 3-Tabs, waiting for a storm to come along so the roof can finally get replaced...

Posted By Ray Hall on 23 Aug 2009 08:15 PM 
Age of a shingle and replacement cost coverage can not make a repair a total loss if the damage is not direct. This is a consequence of a non covered loss.

That's usually true for wood shingles which are considered the most repairable roof made (like your example).

One cannot assume that is always the case for asphalt comp shingles - espcially when deteriorated to the point of thermal cracking.  If I see shingles blown off, laying around the roof, new damage (not just deterioration alone) I am going to recommend replacement of damaged slopes. 

Not the whole roof if there are non-damaged slopes that are just deteriorated.

Posted By Ray Hall on 24 Aug 2009 01:18 AM
...and since they had RCC I totaled it out. I was just out of training school a few weeks. He was a very knowledgable property underwriter and explained how the coverage can not determine the scope of repairs.

...I have and everone has totaled these old crispy critters. but because its cheaper to replace than to repair.

Replacement Coverage has nothing to do with this situation though.

Let's say it's one of those Oklahoma roofs that has the endorsement that gives them a lower premium for ACV only coverage for hail damage. If I had one claim at "ACV only" and another one down the street with full RCV coverage, it would not influence my scope of repair in the least.  I would depreciate both of them per age & condition.  One is recoverable upon completion of repair, the other one isn't.

On the 2nd point, it's rarely cheaper to replace a roof than repair - the issue is if it is repairable at all.  There are infinite shades of gray, from a roof that was installed the year before and the Insd is happy to patch it.   To the one shown above, that is like potato chips when you walk on it, half the tabs are already separated (not from wind damage, but thermal-cracking & deterioration).  Some wind damage worsened the condition of the roof, some shingles are on the yard and blown around loose on the roof so you can't just exclude the claim because of "deterioration" as the cause of loss.  It is a covered loss, just a matter of the scope of repair.  

There does come a point where an asphalt comp roof cannot be repaired, and the claim will not remain closed if you scope to patch it.  Again that doesn't really apply to cedar roofs, known to be patched forever until the whole roof is shot, but rarely bought. 

Billings Montana had a large hail storm several years back. SF went around only paying for the side of the roof that was damaged being a directional situation. Mark Okeefe was then the state insurance auditor and he made them go back and pay for the rest of the roofs so they would match.

 Okeefe stated that they would pay for replacing to match and it was mandated this is the way people were to be treated in Montana. SF reciprocated .