Forums

I think my answer would have to be "which way is the wind blowing" as the thumb rule is how far will the contractor push this loss. About 90% of all the carriers in TX. now "rool over" on wind lift and call it a total as its unrepairable.

I have a sugestion that may help. All the water-smoke restoration contractors who make billions each year on these losses will have to also have a "roof repair" department to get the water-smoke jobs and repair the ROOF SHINGLE ONLY LOSS for a flat $400. (and no deductible payment by the insured) that guaranteed not to allow water to enter the interior for 90 days; by the carrier.

Remember 100% of all the auto carriers do this on windsield cracks. The physical damage section of an auto policy has the same perils as an HO-3 ; plus flood.

Posted By Stormkat on 17 Nov 2010 07:41 AM

Does anyone know if there is an accepted standardized test for brittleness to determine repairability?  If there is an accepted method for testing I would love to know by whom, where  and what it is.

I am already familiar with the 4" or 6" lift test to see if they will fracture.  However, this is not a recognized accepted means of testing unless it has been published or documented as such that I am unaware of.

Thank you,

StormKat

I am not aware of any "Standardized" test, but there comes a point where every roof moves past it's useful life , therefore unrepairable and will  be paid on  ACV to replace and depreciated down to almost nothing if the roof was damaged by a covered peril 

Many adjusters and contractors use words like "too old to repair, theirfore I replaced it" I was in a meeting with over 100 adjusters in Oakland Ca. about 15 year ago when a Farmers Veep of Claims heard all this chirping from an 80% Tx. adjuster crowd. I will always remember his answer "if it was made by a man, it can be repaired by a man".... then we heard all the butter fly wings talk... then I remember what an underwriter told me back in 1957.... when I was just out of training school (3 months) "the age of material can never cause a total loss to any material, only an insured peril can; therefore RCC has not one whit to do with amount of loss or the scope"

Now to get back to Oakland all these years later when the Veep of Farmers Insurance said if you adjusters feel that way go home now and if any of your losses come in that are too old to repair you will go on the do not call list. How to you stand on this topic. I will not listen to the contractors song. Age is not insurable on property claims and yes butterfly wings can be patched up.

Age has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether something is covered or not.

If it was insured and damaged by a covered peril, it will be paid, regardless of age.

Age is only factored in when calculating ACV

Just about all carriers have mentioned to usually not depreciate more than 50% when a roof is in bad repair .I believe this hold back creates a feeling of the

insured that I must replace the roof to get my 50% back. Instead of just pocketing the money. Some don't realize if another storm arises a denial can happen. Tell them that is what some other people have had happen to them.

Especially when the company says we were willing  to pay you to replace it but you didn't live up to your part of the contract. We can't pay you to replace it twice.

  This has always worked well for me. But you need to take the time to explain to the insured that they won't get the 50% if the roof is not replaced.

We have all seen old roofs that have been finished off by a good hail storm.

When you give it to them and then take it away that makes them anxious to follow up on their part of the agreement. Happens to be an old sales trick.

Why would a carrier depreciate a roof that is 19 years old 50%.... thats insane and I did not say agehas anything to do with direct damage by a peril. I said you have to pay for the direct damage done by the peril. If the roof is new and can be repaired thats what is paid. If old and worn out and had damage from a peril AND could repaired if it was new...you have to adjust the loss to REPAIR.... not it,s too old to repair; therefore....... bla bla bla... you people are showing your inexperience to the whole world, and hurting your chance of getting a job.

I have worked for several hundred insurance insurance and I have never heard a whisper from the underwiters about "if its old just take 50% depreciation OR to heck with direct damage... if its old play santa claus and give them a new what ever you are paying for hold back 50% depreciation and GIVE them a new roof, paint job, carpet, appliance etc. where did you people get these rules you post as best practice adjusting.

Ray I was talking about an old roof that had enough damage to warrant replacement .

Nuff Said.

There may be another explanation as to why a 19 yr old roof with a 25 to 30 yr warranty would be dep. only 50%, but I have also never heard a carrier say that.  I tend to depreciate based on how old it is to the warranty years unless the roof looks much newer than what I know it to be.  Some shingles actually do last beyond the warranty period if they don't get hit by a hail storm, and show little signs of wear, although not very often.  There is no rule that I know of that says the warranty years has  to be used to calculate depreciation, but I think it is a good guideline to use especially when a roof is showing signs of wear.

This is a site that has many people and many adjuster who visit to learn . I know we have adjusters who have looked at thousands of roofs for wind damage. I know we also have hundreds of adjusters who have extensive experience in residentual construction and we probably have a few people with formal training in building construction. We also have many claim managers who have seen hundreds and thousands of claim files that have been settled with or without litigation.

But, we still do not know how to keep a composition roof claim presented by an  opportunist Homeowner who has been prompted by a contingency roofing contractor acting as a public adjuster (signed contingency contract).... this roof can not be repaired from the hail hits or the shingles can not be resealed by hand for a fair amount which is $----------.Its a total loss or a lawsuit... this is the insane thinking of carriers who will not fight this practice. Why pay thousands  on a roof membrane that can be repaired and will continue to turn water for years?

The claim departments can stop this waste with better adjusters and real facts.Will adjusting roof claims change or will the roof membrane only be ACV in the future be the best answer?

When we share how we do things, we expose any shortcomings we may have as adjusters. It is natural to want to keep our imperfections to ourselves, but the way to master a trade is to practice in the open that our methods may be tested. It is painful...but the quickest way to improve.

Ray asks why we would depreciate a 19 year old roof at only 50%. I don't like the straight line depreciation method which would require as much as 95% depreciation because of the age alone. My wife's grandmother lived to be 97 years old. When she was 80 years old, she would have been depreciated near 100 percent, but she had 17 more years left. The right depreciation for her at 80, based on her condition (and actual life left) would have been 82%.   My wife's grandmother would have called  this the "Old Broad Evidence Rule".

We don't use actuarial charts that factor in the curves of life expectancy as the roof nears the end of its cycle, but the reality is the longer the roof survives the more likely it is to exceed expectancy. When I come to a depreciation decision, I try to keep in mind any thing I saw in that roof that makes me think it might have had more life left in it than the reported age might suggest.

I would probably depreciate a 19 year roof at 80%. I discuss this with the insured. Almost always they agree the roof was ready for replacement before the storm. If they don't agree, I might negotiate that "final depreciation" up to 60 maybe even 50%. I certainly make sure they understand the depreciation is only deferred until they get the work done if it is RCV policy.

I always ask the insured how old the roof is. More often than not they under report the years. If the roof looks half worn out, and they report it is 5 years old, I'll just adjust the condition to poor and depreciate by 40% or maybe even 30% instead of 20%. I'm not going to question the honesty of the insured. I am going to consider the condition of the roof to make my decision. I probably won't go the full 50% because I want to give the insured the benefit of the doubt.

I don't stand on the very edge of a roof, and I don't stand on the edge of absolute depreciation either. I don't want to take the fall!

Conversely, it the roof looks 5 years old, but the insured says 15, I'm going to adjust the condition upward to reflect what I see.

If a roof is reported to be 19 years old but it wasn't leaking and it doesn't fall apart when I walk on it, already that roof has exceeded my expectation for a 19 year old roof. I see roofs worn out at 12 years and sometimes worse.

I have denied roofs that were so deteriorated that it was impossible to tell hail damage from just deterioration. These roofs had no hail hit marks, only crumbled shingles. The interior showed many many leaks over time and the occupant freely admitted leaking for months and months. I know some people might disagree with this on an RCV policy on the basis that the roof was still functioning as a roof and shedding some water, but I felt this was a gross abuse of the owners responsibility to maintain. I didn't do this alone without a second opinion.

I might not deny a roof like this in the future. I'll just have to wait and see. I certainly will look for every available reason to provide coverage if I possibly can. If I can find a few areas in the house where the roof was shedding water, I might just depreciate the roof by 90% and move on. The carriers guidance on cases like this is crucial.

As to the brittle test, I don't really do that. How the cookie crumbles might influence my opinion on the age but I don't bend a shingle backward to a certain angle to test it. I lift a couple up to check layers underneath. If the test square for the slope is less than the threshold I'll extrapolate individual replacement and multiply that by a factor of 1, 1.5, or 2 depending on age and condition.

I do agree with Ray that if it was made by man it can be repaired. It may not be economically feasible, but everything is repairable. I think our job is to calculate the cost of repair vs. replacement and recommend one of the two options the policy provides.

We are in the age of measurable units. Ever thought we have is in units that can be measured as a property adjuster trying to work a loss.Heck about 80% of the  carriers say only one etimating program is correct as well as 99.9% of the water suckers.The complaint I get today in the" wind lift" capitol of the USA(Tx. gulf coast) is the age of factory warranty .

We all know condition has more fairness than age alone and we still have cat. adjusters who debate repairable composition shingles with the carriers and not the insureds.

We are in the age of measurable units. Ever thought we have is in units that can be measured as a property adjuster trying to work a loss.Heck about 80% of the  carriers say only one etimating program is correct as well as 99.9% of the water suckers.The complaint I get today in the" wind lift" capitol of the USA(Tx. gulf coast) is the age of factory warranty .

We all know condition has more fairness than age alone and we still have cat. adjusters who debate repairable composition shingles with the carriers and not the insureds or the so called training schools.

 

 

<p>We are in the age of measurable units. Ever thought we have is in units that can be measured as a property adjuster trying to work a loss.Heck about 80% of the  carriers say only one etimating program is correct as well as 99.9% of the water suckers.The complaint I get today in the" wind lift" capitol of the USA(Tx. gulf coast) is the age of factory warranty . </p> <p>We all know condition has more fairness than age alone and we still have cat. adjusters who debate repairable composition shingles with the carriers and not the insureds or the so called training schools.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

I am like you guys in determining roof age & condition but we still get guidelines from every carrier we work for. You all know the longer  we do roof claims it continues to change on every event. it comes down to doing the roof claim as the carrier says and our responsibility is to the carier and also the insured. If they have a covered peril . I have always tried to do claims as fairly for both parties as possible . They have paid the premiums for the coverage and deserve to get the coverage they pay for.

  I have had very little problem with either side ,handling claims the fair way. if we don't get some storms it will make no difference on what we debate about any way. Even if the industry does make a standard for repair or replace. Do you think the carriers will adhere to every letter of the standard.

  Every estimate is still an estimate which is in our opinion what it will take to make the insured whole again and abide by the carrier's Policy.

This is not a time to talk about spending money on certifications; however about 10 years ago a vendor paid my way to the Haage Engineer Roofing class.  I think you can get a residentual roof certification today from Haage and it would mean something to you and any carrier in the future. It takes a lot of the jabber out of roofing salesman  talk.

In years past I have used Haage as an expert on roof claims and won the battle. One case was a HOA case of was it a golf ball or a hail stone, it was a golf ball just like we thought.

It seems my post of 11/20 was another example of  me"taking all the air out of the room". Does this mean adjusters on this site do not have good arguments about the very topic we deal with hundreds of times a year when working wind claims on the main topic of a roof adjuster.... the repairs to roofs from wind damage..... ?

Posted By Ray Hall on 20 Nov 2010 11:56 AM

This is a site that has many people and many adjuster who visit to learn . I know we have adjusters who have looked at thousands of roofs for wind damage. I know we also have hundreds of adjusters who have extensive experience in residentual construction and we probably have a few people with formal training in building construction. We also have many claim managers who have seen hundreds and thousands of claim files that have been settled with or without litigation.

But, we still do not know how to keep a composition roof claim presented by an  opportunist Homeowner who has been prompted by a contingency roofing contractor acting as a public adjuster (signed contingency contract).... this roof can not be repaired from the hail hits or the shingles can not be resealed by hand for a fair amount which is $----------.Its a total loss or a lawsuit... this is the insane thinking of carriers who will not fight this practice. Why pay thousands  on a roof membrane that can be repaired and will continue to turn water for years?

The claim departments can stop this waste with better adjusters and real facts.Will adjusting roof claims change or will the roof membrane only be ACV in the future be the best answer?

Hi Ray,
 

About 3 months ago, you spoke of a claim where you stated the roof was at the end of it's useful life and you were going to give a few bucks for a repair.

You said the claim was picked up by a PA  who sent out a roofer and you met with the insured and the roofer and got up on the roof and you stated you went along with the dog and pony show and you finally agreed the roof was too old to repair and therefore bought the roof.

You also stated that by the time you were done depreciating the roof due to age, the award was below the deductible. You did the exact same thing you are lambasting us for doing.

Now , I agree that depreciating a roof at the end of it's life by only 50% isn't really prudent, but you have done exactly what we are discussing here.

As far as rookie adjusters, even experienced adjusters , I have 7 years in and I am still learning from guys like you, Goldust, claimsray, Steve, ole ghost and even Olegred, well maybe not him but this is how people learn and there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Robby

I knew if I put 50% in for maxx depreciation that would liven up this forum a bit.

Gentleman think about it. If your carrier says to jump 3' instead of 2 1/2" what do you do.???  They have the final say in approving the claims not us.

that 50% can range onward up to 100% and be completely denied because the roof had no identifiable damage.As for any written in stone tests for lifted shingles as Ray said a while back there is nothing written in stone . Back when I started adjusting I was told that an estimate is an estimate it is simply an opinion based on your observation on and during the inspection . i don't believe unless they just start paying replacement for every claim that there will ever be

a written in stone way of drawing a line in the sand on shingles. Ray I brought up that issue about windshields a few months back comparing them to minor repairs on roofs. I still think there is some creedence to that . But like everybody else has said if you do it for one insured you have to do it for all that apply.

   What lets say have a nice Thanksgiving and get ready for some ice claims in the northeast. anyone who isn't doing anything can come shovel snow with me. We have 6" today and more coming the next 3 days including 25-50 MPH winds it is 8 above right now and dropping.. That ought to lift a few shingles!! LOL

Robby you did not learn much in 7 years if you can not see the best claims claims practice is what took place on the above reopened claim. Two sides has an disagreement and one side caved in and stipulated a total loss.Now the argument is not about scope, its about the amount of the loss. The amount of the loss is the ACV amount(on an ACV policy) less any deductible.Remember this was a reopen claim. Do think I was shooting in the dark?

I disagree with Jerry also on (following the carriers instruction,s)If the carrier told you to lie , cheat or steal and you knew better, I think we know the answer.If you know some part of a dwelling can be repaired.... and you do not explain this to the insured and their advocate and report this to the carrier to resolve, you are the problem.