| Author |
Message |
Tom Strickland
Registered User
Username: Toms
Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 11:01 am: | |
It has come to light in "past" cats, that the carrier "will" eventually pay all the way to a new deck. They owe and once they start paying the supplements will open up for a great clean-up position (only if you are on a daily or something) but bottom line is, "they owe" I guess the real question is "how do you obtain an agreed cost of repairs with #1.the insured,#2 any contractor? Do your claims, close and hope to get your money and sneak away without burning a bridge IF POSSIBLE!!!!!!! all above is IMHO |
alan jackson
Registered User
Username: Ajackson
Post Number: 116
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 8:39 am: | |
Will the policy pay for code upgrades? |
joseph m lombardo jr
Registered User
Username: Jlombardo
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 7:48 am: | |
I assume you are out on storm duty????If so what does the Vendor's Mgr say? will they put their position in writing???We all know that they are not allowing you to adjust the loss correctly...guess who gets slammed when the stuff hits the fan!!!!!!
If you are working acv policies, write the whole damage including tearoff down to a nailable surface including decking and then depreciate the heck out of the replacement...or find more ethical carriers/vendors to work for... |
Linda Asberry
Moderator
Username: Linda
Post Number: 34
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:28 am: | |
Kinda puts you between a rock and a hard place. If the carriers are telling you no, but the code
tells you it has to be, then first, I would look to the policy and see if the endorsement for code enforcement is present. I believe most codes allow only 2 layers now. I stand to be corrected. Assuming I am correct for the area where you are, you can't repair it without bringing it up to code. Presenting the carrier with the endorsement and the code should make them rethink their position.
I would also pull the prior claims and see if tear off was paid. If it was, you shouldn't have a problem but the insured sure will.
I also believe you owe for a nailable surface and that seems to bring you full circle to the decking issue. I suppose you could tear down to the shakes/wood shingles but I would hate to be the poor smuck doing it. It will look worse than a roller coaster.
I agree with Mark, some insurance company probably did save a bundle by not taking the wood shakes/shingles off in the first place. But on the other hand, I have seen a lot of insureds take the tear off $$ and just keep piling the roofing material on.
Last spring I saw as many as 5 layers and was just amazed the structure held with that much weight. An absolute recipe for disaster.
Sounds like you have a fight on your hands if you want to continue adjusting for these carriers. |
mark salmon
Registered User
Username: Olderthendirt
Post Number: 202
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 11:12 pm: | |
Shakes or wood shingles? Not possible to do a proper repair. And I'd almost bet that an insurance comoany saved money by paying to have the first layer done without removing the wood shingles. |
Rob Kitto
Registered User
Username: Bad_faith_kid
Post Number: 1
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 9:59 pm: | |
I have been working in an area lately that has a lot of homes with multiple layers of composite shingles over shakes. Most of the companies I am working for are only paying for partial roofs, and are not paying for decking. The building code requires that if 25% or more of the roof is to be replaced that the whole roof must be done. With the decking issue, how can a proper repair be done if decking is not paid for? I don't feel this is right way to settle claims, does anyone have any thoughts on this? |
