Forums

Absolutely, and I agree with all that. We do have to have our "inner understanding" of what scope of repair we believe to be correct for the claim - or we don't have a rudder in the water.  In your example, it was allowable for the "put back" to include jacks and drip edge.  That is your position on the scope of repair. 

And if the local market contractor is providing a reasonable estimate that is at or below the computer before those things are added into the computer, that is great.  The underlying truth to all this is that we do not owe more than the reasonable cost of repair, and a local contractor estimate is the spot on the map.

When there are big differences, the first thing I do is look at the scope of repair (tasks allowed, and quantities) before looking at prices per unit cost. Things almost always resolve if the scope of work is agreed upon.

You hit it on the head. That is the issue. Some roofs will run forever without penetrations, like a storage facility roof. Others are peppered with jacks for 3 bathrooms, kitchen, exhaust fan for stove, water heater, etc.   Right or Wrong, the default price list for Xm8 doesn't include those "extras" like jacks and drip edge, as not all roofs had them before the loss.  It's not a lot of money per jack, per Lf of drip edge.  But if you didn't measure the perimeter or count the jacks when you were on the roof, doing the estimate is grief.

I have seen versions of Xm8 with pricing prepared for specific insurance companies, that have a Texas 3-tab shingle entry that DOES include drip edge, vent jacks, any needed valley metal, and of course felt within one unit cost.

As long as we, as adjusters, know what is or isn't included in our unit cost per square, we have stability. We have a point of reference. If it is vague, or the contractor bid is vague on what is included for what price, things get strange. A lot of contractors (and adjusters) I talk with don't roll up their sleeves to see what their software is, or isn't including in the unit cost - that's when it's hard to get an agreed repair figure.

As far as plumbing vent stacks and edge metal, if the roof is a complete tear off, they are replaced too, especailly the old lead vents. Just too difficult to try and save them. Some of the newer rubber or vinyl vents are more forgiving, but the time spent trying to salvage them is more costly than buying new. And have you ever tried to save the edge metal when doing a tear off? Again, can't be done. At least not without spending an exhorbitant amount of time TRYING to salvage it without bending it or otherwise ruining it. The cost of labor spent trying to save it would very quickly outpace any material savings on the estimate. I can assure you that If I were a contractor doing the work and was told I had to salvage and re-use edge metal and/or vents covers, there would definitely be a very expensive line item on my estimate. Then just try to tell me you're not going to pay for it and we're gonna' have a serious face to face.

We were taught in adjuster training that felt was included in the tear off. For installation, felt and roofing are separate line items, and felt includes NO waste factor. Reason being is that felt can be run in several directions and has no pattern to follow. Small scrap pieces are often used on sidewalls, or on cricket roofs, etc.

Paul

Yep.  And there are some houses that DON'T have drip edge, it can be incorporated into the aluminum siding that will remain in place when the roof comes off.  Older houses will have a wooden trim that serves as drip edge, and remains in place.  Both of those examples do not have a 90 degree bend with part on the roof deck, it all runs UNDER the shingle and isn't damaged when the shingles are removed.

I agree that felt should be changed when tearing off a roof. I have tried it personally, it does not work. You tear holes in the felt, then you have to pick out the staples and/or nails, which totally destroys the felt. Drip edge has to be replaced also. Computerized estimating changed the whole picture of estimating damage. Most systems will tell you what is included in that line item, we just need to be aware of what it says, or you will get caught with you pants down. The contractors and roofer have taken advantage of our computerized estimating and that has jacked up prices, in my opinion. This is a good thread, very educational. Thanks to all of you contributors.

Posted By claims_ray on 20 Sep 2009 08:40 PM 
... On the other side of the slope they were already laying a new layer of shingles without replacing the felt. To top it off there was a layer of cedar shake under the felt.

Doesn't mean much, they were just doing a sub-standard job.
Overlay's are a terrible roof. We have all seen it done - but it doesn't make it right.
I looked at a roof today that was alleged wind damage, because it "didn't look right" to the elderly homeowner who could not get up on the roof. It didn't look right because of the bumps & valleys of being installed over another layer of roofing rather than a smooth deck. They don't look at it normally - then they really study it after a wind event, and attribute every flaw to the recent storm. Even the nail-pops which are even more prevelent in an overlay cuz the nails are going through layers of crud before they hit anything solid (if they hit anything solid)
-----------------
Wow Leland, we chimed in at the same time.  I did a post and yours appeared first - you are fast!

Regardless of code, carriers I work for allow to remove damaged roof down to the deck. If it has cedar under it, then a proper nailing surface is owed, and the spaced-sheathing (1x4's or 1x6's) get covered up with OSB or CDX as a smooth nailing surface.  The but-ends of wood shingles, even the thinner ones, don't make for a smooth flat surface.  I have heard of "featherboards" placed at the but end, but heck, why not buy some used brake shoes at the junk yard, save a few bucks compared to new brake shoes...

I am doing a claim right now (unbelievable) where the old Victorian had SLATE as the first roof, possibly from the late 1800's, and somehow people managed to nail 2 layers of comp over the slate. I went up in the attic and could see slate between sheathing. I didn't know you could nail through slate. maybe layers were added & removed over the century, using the slate as a starting point. Right now we are allowing to remove it all, and that is the right thing to do.

When there "is no insurance money" and it comes out of your pocket, corners have been known to be cut short.

How's it going in California? I'm still in a 3-hour time change from you, and thankful for the work.

Posted By Leland on 20 Sep 2009 10:59 PM
I'm a busy bee due to the fires.

Some carriers won't pay to remove down to a "nailing surface" if it is an ACV policy. I was surprised when I heard that, but its true. 

The longer I do this work, the more I realize that for "most" insurance companies it really depends who is sitting in the chair.  Lately I don't have that problem, but for years and years working for mid-size carriers you would see such a high turn-over because the last people quit (couldn't take the heat in the kitchen) and new people always put on the brakes (don't understand the law of large numbers, collect from the entire state, pay the claims you owe).

IMHO the fact of an ACV policy has zero to do with the scope of repairs.  it could be argued that a particular repair has a bldg code element to it, and the enorsement isn't there for the surplus-lines sub-standard Dwelling Fire policies (Lloyds, etc.) but that sort of infers the repair could be made without bringing it up to code with Like - Kind construction. 

You and I are pretty familiar with the depreciation rules in California, all of that removal of old roofing would be immune to 1st party ACV depreciation as we only depreciate materials in California per statute.

Again it may depend who is sitting in the chair, and I stopped dealing with one particular mid-sized company that wrote in CA because I just didn't want to be in the same room with some of their decisions.

I think about 3 insurance carriers sued the Ins, Comish in a1992 for a large hail storm in El Paso when the word bailable surface hot the fan. The commish ruled a woodshingle roof over a solid deck or shingle nailed to shingle lath, that was under one or two layers of comp. shingles. "all shingles had to come off and new plywood or hard board deck, felt and a layer of shingles installed" This cost the insurance carriers millions on the redeck cost alone. Three carriers won the suit, the the practice still exist today.

If I get a roof claim today from one of these carriers with this situation 99% of all the redeck cost is applied and then the last roof it,s self is depreciated on a ACV basis or a RCC basis if the policy has RCC.

Now just stop before you cry foul, bad old insurance company. This is a true betterment to property that needed this procedure before the hail storm came through. In Texas today you can not get an HO-A modified, HO-B or one of the few HO-3  if you have a comp. laid over a W/S deck.

20 years ago all most all roofers in Texas would do lay overs. I agree with Tom the cumputer has cost the insurance industry.

I can see the catastrophe industry making changes each day to cut out roof inspections, and for that matter all inspections, except a very small % that are going to the court house. We can measure roofs from space. We can pull daily reports by zip code. Have 10 inspectors determine the hail size in these zip codes and close 50-60% of the dwelling losses without a foot print on the roof. Good IA's will always be needed to do the field work and it  seems more and more are doing the inside work as well.