Forums

This is a lesson I learned from the underwriting department of a major insurance company over 50 years old. The adjuster is supposed to approve  losses  to be paid". What is made by a man and installed by a man can be repaired by a man".

Now you must approve the actual cost to repair or replace the damaged portions of the roof from the INSURED peril. Still having a problem, right.

You or a repair person must calculate how much to repair/replace the actual damage and any footfall and if it exceeds the cost of new for old you have your answer. Age or condition has NOTHING to do with repairs or replacement.  You must also apply 19/25 depreciation on the shungles and labor.    Big ONE. If they comply with replacement cost coverage(if any) IT"S A FORTUITOUS EVENT, but its not because "they paid for the coverage".

NEVER confuse replacement cost with coverage, you owe the cost of repair or replace.  Most auto repairs that exceed 75% of the fair market will total a crashed vehicle. This is not a rule on roof claims, but many carriers will not question the field adjuster  estimate.

"Some one will be paid to settle all of these, It might as well be me."

I agree Ray, but is there a point of wear on a roof where it would not be considered repairable?  This is something I see often dealing with lots of lower valued dwellings.  Most are TDP1 acv forms, but a few rcv are floating around.  

Of course roofers all the time say a roof is too old to repair and should be replaced.  If shingles are too brittle and falling off, how can a carrier propose to repair something that is clearly not repairable?

Go back to my post. I was lold by the insurance carrier that help write the first replacement endorsement to the EC coverage on a standard fire policy. This endorsement is not COVERAGE to replace old for new. IT is purchased coverage to be reimbursed for the DEPRECIATION only, AFTER tthe restoration is complete. Go to a DP! and take 99% depreciation if the roof is worn out from age.

I was working property claims in Texas when the "nailable surface" lawsuits were filed, they were really an Ins. commissioner strongarm for a higher office and all the carriers , but three went along. Guess who I worked for as an IA from 1992 until now, you are correct I still depreciate the nailable surface 99% (because it bwill not show up on the computer as a 0) and The carriers will not allow haul off on the 2nd layer if its a comp over a comp. And they are right , went to court and won.

Now all states are differant, but these 3 carriers won in Texas and the rest rolled over. Some very good adjusters still think a package policy(Homeowner) with RCC built into the premium structure give new for old coverage, this COVERAGE can NEVER total a roof that can be REPAIRED... I saw a Farmers Supt. in 1995 in a room with 100 Pilot adjusters(most from Texas) in Pleasanton, CA tell the whole room "any thing made by a man, can be repaired by a man", and I better never hear the words" It was too old to repair, therefore I totaled it". Yes we slipped a lot of 24 inch thick butt wood shakes into 40 year old roofs with green mold. That gig only lasted 7 months for the one.s who paid attention.

Do they still have these meetings with all the know it alls from Texas?  Is betterment involved yes or no. It is in 95% of all losses I have seen.

 Read the policy, it does not read the way YOU think it should. Get into law and have the law change the contracts to read your way of thinking.

 Kinda had a bad day with "No English" and they will get a letter in English ONLY.

We hear a lot about case law. But seems we never get to read the case law. Most of the "case law" I hear about is from water suckers, roofing salesman, public adjusters and people with a license and discredit our profession.

Posted By Ryan in Houston on 12 Feb 2010 12:59 PM

(1)...  Other adjuster says, repair because insured failed to maintain the roof.  He says carrier only owes for what was damaged and age and condition of roof have no bearing on if entire roof should be replaced.

 (2)... Can a roof be too old to repair?  

(3)... If a roof is too old and worn to repair, does the carrier owe to replace? 

1). Roofs become aged, brittle, and manifest thermal cracking, heat blisters, etc.  Maintenance is not typically needed to a roof, aside from proper ventilation (which begins with responsibility for the builder).  Think about the tires on your vehicle.  You can rotate them every 3,000 miles, but they are only going to last so long.

2). Yes.  It's a pliability issue, lack of.

3). You don't owe anything for non-damaged slopes.  Some carriers have criteria that can vary, and it is their sand box.  Assuming there is direct accidental damage to a specific slope, and the surrounding shingles are TRULY non-pliable, it can be non-repairable.  Run it by mgmt if you want to CYA and ensure that you are doing what your principle is asking

Posted By Ray Hall on 13 Feb 2010 01:48 AM
I agree with Bob H in his example, however I think betterment is in ever loss . The new slope would have betterment withheld by me and I think I am doing what the contract said.

Of course, and an example would be replacing an entire run of fencing (even if it is only one of 3 long runs in the rear of the property).  If a slope is allowed to be replaced in the estimate, it will be depreciated based on age & condition.

ACV policy, that first settlement is all they will ever see.  Most homeowner policies are RC, so once a signed contract is presented (or work completed) they can collect full replacement cost for that slope (less deductible).

POSTED BY STEVE: Good point about interior paint - and of course virtually all carriers will allow paint of the room, not 2x2 Square Feet.  That is fairly uniform by virtually all carriers.  But with roofs (and fencing) it isn't the same.  Mankind has patched roofs and fencing for centuries, and it is a situation where matching is less of an issue (but SOME regions of the country do have matching statutes that can have local implications).

POSTED BY RANDY_C: Yep and that concept of allowing some additional shingles for damages that will occur to additional shingles is a "tool" that can be pulled out of the tool box prior to buying the whole roof.  I think the easiest way to visualize this dilemma is when there is a large slope with only a small area of damaged tabs.  What would a reasonable person do?  When you get up on a roof that is hammered with lots of missing shingles approaching 50% it is easier to justify totaling out that slope.  When you talk about failure to maintain a roof that has leaked before... that exclusion (improper maintenance, construction, etc.) is going to speak more to the claimed damage to the interior than "lack of maintenance to the roof".  Roofs simply deteriorate, and will be depreciated based on age & condition.  People that settle total loss vehicles will understand that the valuation of the vehicle will be "adjusted" if the paint is shot, tires worn, upholstery torn.  But you aren't going to deny the claim cuz the guy didn't wax his car & rotate the tires.

Well we now have 4 very experienced adjusters agree on a real world roof claim nd an interior ceiling loss(I am in the four)

My 99% depreciation on the wood shingle deck(nailable surface) is for the three carriers who filed the lawsuit and the policy is an ACV. All this blather can be elimated on this topic by the afjuster working the loss to explain WHY he scoped the loss this way. I can,t recall ever being over ridden by the carrier ot the coverage attorney, except one time on a large pollution clean up claim when motor oil leaked into the ground. (and they were correct)

We hear football words like "the ground can not cause a fumble" basket ball words like "dont foul a jump shooter. When working roof losses remember Its: "age alone can not total a roof"

Randy and others in his example the hail was a windfall, he was just praying for a hail storm and got his wish. It all works out you depreciate enough not to exceed the Ded. so some small check will be sent, and the hold back if he PAID for RCC which he did when he piurchased the HO. My argument is with adjusters who think-say "itwas so old.............now if its ACV I go 50-to 75% on non recoverable betterment like most adjusters. I work a lot of ACV losses and most insureds get the feeling I am doing my best for them.

If you start saying betterment, non recoverable and thinging this way life become much less stressful.

You may see this someday. The house is covered with double felt with disk and nail fastners and was blown away with high winds and the inside was wetted down extensivly, ceilings , walls, floors and UPP. You notice some of the felt has turned grey (age). The insured was roofing his own house, had illness or $$ problems. Yes the entire loss is covered as the felt membrane did its intended job, turning water for months before the windstorm.

Its human nature not to penalize honest insureds. I think most of us do that. We just can not interpret the written policy wrong. For the new people Just always keep in mind photographs, measurements, wind driven rain, surface water and not returning phone calls has ruined many adjusters reputation.