| Author |
Message |
Greg Scott (Gregs14)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2001 - 3:54 am: | |
David, where did I say that stress fractures were covered? I said Haag blew the call when called out by the carrier. The claims manager said after the "bad" report he had no choice but to pay since he had called in Haag and Haag had identified it as prior wind lift. And as for your other statement, Senate Bill 365 has to do with obtaining coverage, not adjusting the loss. In order to qualify for coverage the shingles must pass U.L. 997. Greg |
David P Bennett (Whitey)
| | Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 7:55 pm: | |
Actually, whether or not the adhesive conforms, is really a mute question, except in the outside chance that a carrier might decide to pursue subrogation. Stress fractures have never been a covered cause of loss as long as I have been around. Seems, to accept one experts report without questioning, how the uplift occurred, as as you say, you couldn't lift the shingle tabs with a putty knife and I assume all the shingles were still nailed down in place. Sounds like an adjuster got buffaloed and spooked because he was dealing with an engineer. |
Greg Scott (Gregs14)
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 2:59 pm: | |
Texas Senate Bill 365 update: ARMA - the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association and U.L. both report that MOST shingle manufacturers currently meet U.L. 997. U.L. States that shingles are applied as they would be on a roof on a certain sized deck and allowed to "cure" in place for 16 hours at 140 degrees and then wind of 60 mph is used to check for failure or uplift. ARMA adds that manufacturers DO often change sealant characteristics for coastal area wind compliance.
The Good News is that sealant is now having modified additives that do allow a "stretching" of the sealant so that stress fracture issues aren't as prevalent. Of course this post may be branded as unprofessional and of little technical value by all those super-intelligent posters on the new higher IQ forum. But to us peons down here on the myths and legends level, I thought it was interesting information for hurricane and wind damage claims. Greg |
Greg Scott (Gregs14)
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 1:57 pm: | |
Texas State Senator Ken Armbrister has just proposed Senate Bill No. 365 dealing with U.L.'s 997 Standard for shingles. It has to do with requiring roofing assemblies to meet certain self sealing standards and will probably require more investigation on future roof claims to determine if the sealant conformed to the U.L. 997 spec.
My question? Has the sealant spec been tested for elasticity since ultra-hardened sealant and fixed or immovable fasteners can cause stress fractures as shingles shrink with age. The fractures are usually horizontal in direction and are often mis-identified as a prior wind uplift episode that has also had Ultra-Violet damage.
I know because we were forced to pay for a roof when Haag identified this phenomenon as a prior episode of wind uplift in their report. It was a shame because we actually paid the claim even though the next day a roof consultant identified the real problem as stress fractures.
By the way, after we revisited the site, we understood he was right since the shingles were so stuck together you couldn't even get a putty knife to separate them without massive breakage. It would have taken a category 5 tornado to blow those shingles apart and I'll bet they would still have broken in the middle rather than
separate.
And question number 2. How much longer will it take us to figure out if, in fact, the shingle in question was U.L. 997 compliant and therefore covered or was not and therefore not covered?
Greg |
|
