Forums

Was the sheathing damaged by the event that damaged the shingles?

The event did not damage the sheathing directly.  However the shingles could not be replaced without the new sheathing.   I've seen carriers pay to remove a layer of wood shingles and install sheathing over lath boards in order to replace an overlying composition roof.  Thats why I thought perhaps the carrier might pay?

Was the damage to the planking a covered cause of loss. In your scenario,  it was not. You must have a nailable surface to attach the shingles, so coverage for that would be a carriers decision. Sounds like the attic cross ventilation was not good. Planking should last longer than 50 years.

I am with Tom on this one. If it was pine/fir planks 1x6, 8, 10 or 12 It will last longer than the contractor and home owner combined ages. I would need to see it , to believe. 

I know it sounds strange but the boards would shatter when nailed.  They had no evidence of rot, just brittle.  The previous roofer had the same problem as they had put  metal flashing all over the roof to try to save the sheathing. ( 6" planks )  

Anyway I appreciate all the responses.  Kinda looks like the carrier isn't actually responsible.  The damage was definately not a result of the hail storm.

Sounds like the last post by the contractor hit the nail on the head on this question, (all pun intended). 

The previous roofer had the same problem would show it was pre-existing and the evidence of the metal flashing he spoke of would be evident.

If an inspection made after the roof shingles was off, I would have to state to the insurance company it was pre- existing problem and excluded under the policy. 

I know the nailable surface has been used in the past in other states and paid but I believe SF might have been the first or the company to use it most, then they, from what I understand have quit doing it.  And I would have to agree if not damaged by the covered loss it would not be a covered part of the loss even if the nailable surface came up. I do agree with the wood shake shingles having to come off and new decking installed.

There may be ensuing damage to the sheathing during the R&R, if it is as brittle as you are stating. Depending on the carrier, the carrier i work for will allow on average for entire R&R of 1x6, 8 10 etc sheathing, as most of it is T&G and removal is likely going to cause ensuing damage to adjacent planks, However this has to be explained thoroughly in my reports.

Bryan, I agree, too much heat build up will cause boards to become brittle, due to loss of sap. With  a good cross ventilation system, wood planking or plywood should last well over 50 years. That too depends on how many time the shingles are replaced. A bunch of nail holes will destroy the integrity of the wood also.

From Mike Kunze post, he stated we were not told how long the insured lived there and that also has to be considered.

The adjuster of record I am sure would have asked that and if they were not the owners at the time of previous roof replacement it does make a difference in pre-existing condition as they would not have known about it. If they were the ones to have previous roof put on then I would still turn in as pre-existing condition and I would not recomend paying for it.

As stated by others some states have addressed the nailable surface and made law or a part of the loss. And that is ok but do you see where this could lead. 

When Insurance Companies know they are going to be at risk to pay for these kind of repairs they are going to raise all homeowners insurance rates and this will influence other types of repairs also. The Consumer Advocate is good I guess but  people are going to have to take the responsibility upon themselves to have the home inspected before they purchase. If they find inadequate roof ventilation then it should be addressed then. An insurance policy should not end up paying for a contractor or builders error and then be factored into everyones homeowners premiums. 

I know some are going to say the Insurance Company has the right to inspect before issuing the policy but an in detail inspection cost will still be factored in to the homeowner.

This may be getting off the subject but some of you are saying it should be paid for. Have you thought it out completely. Rot and Deterioration are excluded in a policy and a contractor error or a covered loss should not change that. Things are leading up to Homeowner Insurance being as outrageous as Health Insurance.  

Each loss has to be looked at on its own merit rather than an across the board all the decking needs replaced for nailable surface, which no contractor likes to do sections here and there.

I believe I read in another post that he stated, as I agree, big business is running this country and not the average person such as most adjusters are. Also to further state we can still take it back if we put good people in office and hold them accountable just as building inspectors should be.

I have said before I am not taking up for the Insurance Company, as they are big business too, I am just wanting to put responsibility where it is due so my kids and grandkids and so forth can have a chance.

I handled a claim during Charley in FL that the lady stated she was a secretary to a congessman. She went on about how she knew the insurance companies are the biggest lobbiest in the country moreso than anyone else at the time. I do not know that to be fact but have no reason to doubt it. How else does someone like lobbiest Jack Abramhof throw around the money like he did. Big Business gave it to him.

Got way off base of the question but is my reasoning behind it as well as the policy excluding the rot or deterioration asked on the question of this particular claim presented to insurance company.

This is an excellant example of insurance carriers in one state expanding the scope of loss to include a condition that was discovered after a loss, that is not covered under the latent defect and other exclusions.  The state was probably Texas.

The history as I recall was along these lines. The storm was a summer hail storn in El Paso, TX  in 1991 and most of the roofs were composition T-Lock or the Bird Shingle that had two small ears that had locks . The shingles are good shingles for wind resistance in this area, as the 3 tabs do not unseal and flap. The contractors did not replace with the same type for several reason and the carriers were insisting on lay overs on this storm.

The result was lumpy poor looking 3 tabs over the old lumpy lock shingles and the outcry began and both layers were removed and laid over the "nailable surface". The largest carrier started the ball game and ended the ball game and all the other carriers fell into line except about 4-5 of the Texas carriers. As I recall the Texas Insurance Commish ruled all comps must come off (new& old) to the deck(solid) but did not address the old  wood shingle decks(abandoned-no value).

The 4-5 small Texas Carriers sued the commish and a jury trial ruled the contract is the rules and not a commish ruling, and these carriers did not pay like the big boys. I do not think a case has ever been adjudicated to make this Texas law, nor any other state law that I know off.

Therefore, all of you  *AIA's and** CIA's be very careful you may have to testify as an expert. **

* Adjuster for Insureds Advocate.

**Contractor for Insureds Advocate.

*** Contact me for your official designation, Trader OMPC**** official mold police chief ****

Is anyone working due to all of the recent ice and winter storms? I'm sure this is posted under the wrong thread and I hope it will be placed in the correct one.

Thanks,

AlanJ