Forums

With out seeing photos or a more detailed description NO

No!

I agree, where i come from that is not a nailable surface. But a certain insurance co says it's ok and it's going to mediation.

This blows my mind, and i need advise on how to prove this in mediation.

In addition to the nailable surface issue, is there still any place where a third layer of roofing is allowed? Standard practice is to tear off the first the underlying layers which leaves only the skip decking. It's been that way for at least twenty years. Am I missing something?
As for proving it at mediation, you will likely need a roofing expert's report and/or a copy of the building code.

I think you really might need to ask two separate questions:

1) is it a nailable surface? and 2) if not, is tearoff and installation of sheathing covered under the policy?

Here's my answers:

1) It would not be a nailable surface for several reasons: a) it is rotten b) no manufacturer would consider it adequate or allow their warranty c) no roofer would warranty such work and most would not be willing to do it d) mechanically it doesn't work well- it won't hold, hard to nail correctly, longer nails needed etc. e) not code compliant in most places- the city won't let you put a third layer (because it doesn't work) f) what could you possibly nail over asbestos? more asbestos, or comp shingles??


2) If you have an actual cash value policy the insurance company, depending on state law, may have the right to pay for a repair only, regardless of whether it will match, regardless of whether any roofer is willing to do it. On an actual cash value policy in California the company can pay for only those shingles that are directly damaged by wind/hail. The carrier does not have to pay one penny for "tie-in" of surrounding material, or pay for areas that are undamaged (other layers). This may come as a big surprise to adjusters that haven't handled ACV policies but it is well established in case law. If a homewner in California has damaged kitchen floor tiles on an ACV policy the carrier can decide to pay for only the damaged tiles, even if there is no possible to way to match the rest of the room. Many carriers will go ahead and pay for the whole room and adjusters will write their estimates for the whole room but there is generally no legal requirement to do so. Other states are similar.

If it is an RCV policy there is coverage to create a uniform appearance, or "matching". (The concept of "matching" does not apply in ACV policies.) If it is an RCV policy, the insured is more likely to get paid for removal of both layers and installation of sheathing even if there is no code upgrade coverage. The insured might even get money for an adjacent structure that has the same looking shingle, so that both roofs will match.


This issue is potentially a far larger amount of money than depreciation. The difference between an RCV policy and an ACV policy on an older California home with multiple layers, space decking, and a shingle that is no longer made can often be $50,000.00 or more.

Please tell us if you are adjusting an ACV policy. That might explain the carrier's position. Also, what state are you in?

California regulation for REPLACEMENT COST policies:

When a residential or commercial property insurance policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first party losses based on replacement cost, the following standards apply:

1) When the loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any consequential physical damage incurred in making the repair or replacement not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be included in the loss. The insured shall not have to pay for depreciation nor any other cost except for the applicable deductible.

2) When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance.

FOR AN ACTUAL CASH VALUE POLICY THE INSURANCE COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS REGULATION.

That means for an ACV policy the carrier does not have to pay for removal of additional layers even if it is neccesary to do repairs!

This regulation follows case law and other states have similar regulations.

I bet the poster asking the question has an ACV policy!

I thought somebody would point out that California has odd laws and rules and my California example doesn't apply elsewhere.

Just to drive home this concept take a look at IOWA insurance regulations:

191—15.44(507B)Standards for determining replacement cost and actual cost values.15.44(1)Replacement cost.When the policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first-party losses based on replacement cost, the following shall apply:a.When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any consequential physical damage incurred in making such repair or replacement not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be included in the loss. The insured shall not have to pay for betterment or any other cost except for the applicable deductible.b.When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace as much of the item as is necessary to result in a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight. This subrule applies to interior and exterior losses. Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis. The insured shall not bear any cost over the applicable deductible, if any.

Notice the Iowa regs are almost identical to California. Other states too.

What I'm showing here is the nuts and bolts of the law/regs, that adjusters are obeying without ever even having read it - if an adjuster ever wondered why roof sheathing gets paid for a home that didn't have sheathing before, this is the reason.

"any consequential physical damage incurred in making such repair or replacement"

removing the adjacent shingles to repair the damaged shingles is "consequential physical damage" and that's why it gets paid on an RCV policy.

removing a lower layer of shingles to repair the damaged shingles is "consequential physical damage" and that's why it gets paid on an RCV policy.

installing sheathing where there wasn't any before to repair the damaged shingles is "consequential physical damage" and that's why it gets paid on an RCV policy.

As I explained, that rule isn't there for ACV policies. If anybody wants, I can try to find the case law that says ACV polices don't have to cover these things.

The state regs are expressed in the positive, ie. they say what RCV policies must cover, and don't mention what ACV policies don't have to pay.

Here is a link to a plaintiff lawyer website that has almost identical wording for the Florida statute (law, not just regs)

http://www.propertyinsurancecoverag...-property/

The article states that a federal case decided this rule is applicable to homeowner claims, not commercial.

I believe this concept is true for pretty much every state:

RCV policies have to pay for everything neccesary to do the repairs, including making it look nice and uniform

ACV policies don't have to pay for things that are undamaged and don't have to pay to make things match

By the way- if an RCV policy is settled on an ACV basis because the homeowner is not eligible for recoverable depreciation, that still counts as an RCV policy for purposes of this rule.

This an asbestos roof over shake with skip decking in Omaha Ne. It had around 100 broken tile on a approx 25 sq roof. With old shake and skip decking is this a nailable surface for a repair? Can anyone send me a code or anything that says either way?

You haven't done your homework, and you aren't advancing the discussion very much.

As I explained, in great detail, the carrier may not owe for removing addl layers if it is an ACV policy. Yet you can't tell us what kind of policy it is. This is a community for adjusters. We adjust losses based on the words in the insurance polices. Maybe you are a roofer, and know nothing about policies. Fair enough, that's half an excuse. But in fairness to professional roofers, many of them understand policy basics. I know a lot of smart contractors that will check coverage limits on other structures before assuming there is enough coverage for the detached garage. Smart contractors try to know some policy basics.

Considering this is an adjuster website, for discussion of adjuster questions, do you mind giving us the policy details or at least giving some excuse why you can't or won't?

Is it an ACV policy or RCV???????

One thing seems certain: IT IS NOT A NAILABLE SURFACE.

Maybe you should contact the building department and ask about your particular situation. The man's name is right on the internet:

Greg Hauptman
Architectural/Structural Reviewer, City of Omaha Nebraska Phone: (402) 444-5354 Fax: (402) 444-6140

Omaha Nebraska uses the IBC & IRC 2006 Building/Dwelling Code. That's also right on Omaha's website.

Here's what the IRC 2006 (international Residential Code) says about reroofing:

R907.3 Re-covering versus replacement.

New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing existing roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur:


1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water-soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing.

2. Where the existing roof covering is wood shake, slate, clay, cement or asbestos-cement tile.

3. Where the existing roof has two or more applications of any type of roof covering.

4. For asphalt shingles, when the building is located in an area subject to moderate or severe hail exposure according to Figure R903.5.

Exceptions:
1. Complete and separate roofing systems, such as standing-seam metal roof systems, that are designed to transmit the roof loads directly to the building’s structural system and that do not rely on existing roofs and roof coverings for support, shall not require the removal of existing roof coverings.
2. Installation of metal panel, metal shingle, and concrete and clay tile roof coverings over existing wood shake roofs shall be permitted when the application is in accordance with Section R907.4.
3. The application of new protective coating over existing spray polyurethane foam roofing systems shall be permitted without tear-off of existing roof coverings.


BASED ON THIS INFO READILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET, OMAHA NEBRASKA DOES NOT (GENERALLY)* ALLOW NEW ROOF MATERIAL TO BE PLACED OVER WOOD SHAKE.

But you already have some asbestos nailed over wood shake..... will they let you repair it or will they consider it substantial damage that must be brought up to code?

I suggest you call Mr. Hauptman and ask him- allowing repairs to a small area and not requiring code is a subjective decision for the building department. From your description it sounds like more than half the roof is damaged, so I doubt they will let you do a repair, and if they don't allow a repair it will need to be brought up to code.

* the exception: R907.4 Roof recovering.

Where the application of a new roof covering over wood shingle or shake roofs creates a combustible concealed space, the entire existing surface shall be covered with gypsum board, mineral fiber, glass fiber or other approved materials securely fastened in place.

Hope this helps.

Posted By rogpayx22 on 14 Jun 2012 09:11 AM

"With a layer of shake on skip decking and a layer of asbestos tiles cracked by hail over the old split and rotten shake is that considered a nailable (sic) surface for a repair?"

We agree that this, as described, would not be considered a "nailable surface", however, insurance coverage remains a mystery.

 

 

It's RCV

I had a simple question, is this a nailable surface. I am a contractor and I have contacted all the people that you mentioned.

They have been no help. This an amfam claim that is going to arbritration soon and I am looking for something in writing, not opinions. I know claims I know good roofing practices, and a repair in this situation is not reasonable as amfam seens to think it is. This policy has no acv provisions on the roof and they refuse to do the right thing.

my name is Roger 816-604-7904

Roger,

Most of us know good roofing, as you said. But most catadjusters do not have the qualifications to serve as a roofing expert in any legal or quasi-legal proceedings such as arbitration. Some very experienced folks have given you their opinion here, but in arbitration that may not count for much. Also, just to clarify, is this going to arbitration or appraisal? If arbitration, there is probably an attorney involved who should be lining up an expert. If appraisal the sole question should be how much is the claim worth and hopefully there is a qualified appraiser who should be figuring out how to prove his/her case before the umpire.

I said several times it doesn't sound like a nailable surface.

Are you the contractor for the insured? Here's what I would suggest- you can force the issue.

Try to pull a permit for repair. Spell it out on your permit application that you want to add a 3rd layer to asbestos and shake layers. Figure out how deep the roofing nails are supposed to penetrate the rafter. Add the thickness of the existing layers and round up an 1/8 of an inch. Specify any other details. Show some good photos with the application.

Now present this application to the city. They will refuse to issue a permit, and they will probably say why in writing. If they don't write it down, ask them to. Now fax that to the roofing manufacturer. Get their expert on the phone and ask them to tell you it what the city says is true.

Now you have 2 opinions and send them to the insurance company.

I would give it a try.

I spoke to the gentleman, he explained to me that the city refuses to issue a permit as they deem the repair too small to require one. He is a roofer working in several states. He informed me that the policy is RCV and about 5 roofers have refused to do a repair.

I was informed that the insurance carrier's experts state they can match the asbestos shingle using salvaged material from a roofing "boneyard".

This strategy was used by a very large carrier in Hurricane Katrina.

I'm guessing that idea wouldn't work here in California, because we tend to remove asbestos and I've never heard of anybody installing it, just removing it. It is considered a contaminated material and I don't think anyone wants the liability of doing anything other than removing it with moon suits. But I know this was done in Louisiana many times.

Nebraska is another state with replacement cost matching rules:
(from the Nebraska DOI)

010. Standards for prompt, fair and equitable settlements applicable to fire and extended
coverage type policies.
010.01 Replacement Cost Coverage: When the insurance policy authorizes for
the adjustment and settlement of losses based on replacement cost, the
following shall apply:
010.01(A) When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or
part, any consequential physical damage incurred in making such
repair or replacement not otherwise excluded by the policy, shall be
included in the loss. Repair or replacement of consequential
physical damage which requires the use of materials which are
better or superior to the damaged materials shall not be considered
betterment unless the use of such materials is at the request of the
insured.
010.01(B) When a loss requires replacement of items and the
replacement items do not reasonably match in quality, color or size,
the insurer shall replace all items in the area so as to conform to a
reasonably uniform appearance. This applies to both interior and
exterior losses. The insured shall not bear cost over any applicable
deductible.

So in Nebraska, on an RCV policy, the carrier owes the money neccessary to make the repair a reasonable match in quality, color and size.

(bear in mind that the definition of reasonable may differ from one state to another - a reasonable match in Nebraska may not be considered reasonable in NY, and there is also some case law on this that may differ from one state to another)

The carrier apparently states that the replacement shingles will be a good match.

The roofer is going to try another approach and I asked him to post again to let us know what the result is.

In California, asbestos removal can only be done by a certified asbestos contractor. Non-certified people are not allowed inside the containment.

Most residential water losses in California get tested for asbestos. Most dry-out contractors will not cut the walls until an asbostos test is done. Sometimes they will cut walls if the house is newer. Most dryout contractors won't take their own samples- it is against the rules. Only a certified person can take samples.

Nebraska probably isn't as strict, but Nebraska also has asbestos regulations covering removal and disposal. If I were a contractor in Nebraska working on Asbestos I would be careful to follow the rules to reduce potential liability.

Here are the Nebraska asbestos regs:

http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Publica....enDocument

The damaged shingles may be a small enough amount that it is not subject to certain Nebraska regulations.

From the Nebraska regs:

Residential Asbestos
Residential structures meeting the exemption requirements discussed earlier are not subject to the NESHAP requirements. Asbestos can be removed by a homeowner or unpaid volunteer. If a homeowner hires a contractor to remove ACM in their home, the contractor may be subject to the DHHS Nebraska Asbestos regulations (Title 178).

Asbestos does not have to be removed. If ACM is in good condition, is nonfriable and is not disturbed, the risk of asbestos exposure is minimal. Please note that there is no safe level of asbestos exposure. ACM can be covered, sealed, repaired or left in place. ACM should be maintained and handled to ensure the least amount of disturbance.

It is best to wear a respirator and proper protective clothing when disturbing asbestos material. Keep the material wet while handling it and dispose of the material in a leak-tight container. Call your local MSW landfill or garbage hauler for further handling instructions prior to disposal.

Thanks for all the help fromeveryone. Leland you were a great help and  I appreciate you going over and above to help me.

AMFAM backed down the day of arbitration

Thanks for all the help