| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
 Posted - 03/09/2003 : 16:15:51
|
| There are lots of opinions on this question and they come up at every hail storm. What is your opinion? Please elaborate for those who might be on the fence. |
|
|
ShermaninCO
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 17:01:53
|
| Moderate Granule loss is not damage. The ganules are a wear surface much like the tires on your car a little bit of rubber is lost each time you drive. A small amount of granules are lost with each rain storm and or walking across the roof. |
Bill Sherman
|
 |
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 17:39:34
|
| Hey, Sherman, that tire example is the same on that I use. And don't forget, the newer the roof, the more granules will be lost becaus of the riders. |
|
|
|
rugg
Canada
14 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2003 : 19:44:05
|
Haag Eng books are an industry standard and they will tell you that the loss of granules is not considered hail damage. The shingle must show signs of puncture, or a bruise. The use of the tire explaination is a very good one, as it seems to go over fairly well with insureds.
AS well if you are talking about wood shakes and wood shingles need to have been split. A bruise to the wood will not affect the integrity or the life of the shingle. As you may have guessed this is not a direct quote.
Get yourself a copy of the Haag book on shingles. |
|
|
|
william s cook
53 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 07:47:04
|
Please provide all insureds with a copy of the Haag book on shingles so that when a loss occurs they will know what to anticipate in the adjustment of their claim, otherwise they will be relying on their contract of insurance to pay for any direct physical loss to covered property by a non-excluded peril. Explain to a vehicle owner that excess loss of rubber on a tire from a sudden breaking event that causes a flat spot and a bumpy ride is normal wear. The granules are a part of the roof system and any reduction in the shingle covering reduces shingle protection and the remaining life of the roof proportionally. If an insured makes a claim with a cause of loss to be "granules have worn away over the life of the roof" then tell them about the tire story. If a recent hail storm has impacted the roof granules then pay a roof vendor to glue the errant granules back on the shingle to restore the insured to a pre-loss condition. OR, rewrite the policy to exclude granule loss caused by hail. Example UNDER EXCLSUIONS "ROOF GRANULE LOSS CAUSED BY HAIL."
William S Cook
From the Dark Side |
|
|
|
rugg
Canada
14 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 08:56:17
|
Sure let me know where I can send you a copy. I suppose that every time wind blows and rain falls that we are to complete replacement on a roof due to the granule loss.
The loss of granule on the shingle, unless it is completely removed does not affect the life of the shingle. You are aware that the shingle is in place to protect the roof, and as such if the shingle still provides water shedding capability like its original intention then there is no loss of life duration to the shingle. The shingle must be physically damaged. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 10:55:58
|
So, Mr. Cook. Should we provide coverage for granular loss when there is a 6" rain fall in a single day. After all, more granules are lost in a heavy rain than in a light rain, or should we provide coverage if there is a 60 mph wind gust and granular loss is higher than on a normal day? Exactly where is the line drawn? Granule fall off of a roof as I'm inspecting it from my own footsteps, does this mean that I should pay for everyroof I walk on even if I don't find wind or hail damage to it?
Your tire example doesn't apply because obviously the event you mentioned affected the usablity of the tires. If the hail storm knocked enough granules off of the roof to affect it's usability it would be a covered loss. But simple granular loss simply is not covered.
Let me ask you something Mr. Cook, are you one of those PA's that runs around telling insureds they are owed for granular loss, thus making our job as IA's that much more difficult and causing us to all hate PA's? |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 12:11:12
|
Composite asphalt shingles, are composed of three elements. First, a mat core of either an organic material (normally a cellulose product) or a fiberglass product. Second, that mat core is coated with multiple layers of asphalt. Third, pulverized minerals are then inbedded into the final layer of asphalt, on the top side of the shingle.
This third element, the granulation, is there for a purpose, only the coloring of the granulation is cosmetic. The granulation protects the asphalt and mat core, from damaging ultraviolet rays.
This damage (more prevelant in fiberglass mat core) to "asphalt shingles", manifests itself in what is known as cyclic fatigue; and shows itself with premature splitting or cracking.
This granulation on composite asphalt shingles, is an essential component, to allow the shingle to have the durability over the years. Apparently the most effective granulations, are ones that have a concentration of mica, or oyster shell, or a type of slate.
Considering the above, then place those shingles in an insurance scenario.
Hail, a covered peril of a policyholder's homeowners policy, falls on his roof. After the hail stops, the homeowner goes outside as clearly sees at the outflow of his gutters (aka eaves) a deposit of granules from his asphalt roof. He reports a "hail claim".
An adjuster is dispatched, who goes up and examines the roof covering. The adjuster finds no evidence of typical bruising or worse characteristics of "hail damage". The adjuster advises the homeowner that there is no "hail damage" to that roof.
The homeowner turns to the pile of granules at the outflow of his gutters, and says yes there is "hail damage".
An examination of the policy should follow. I'll use my trusty HO3 (ISO 0491).
Under Definitions, #5 Occurrence, ".... continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, which results .... in .... "property damage"".
Under Definitions, #6 Property damage, "means physical injury to .... of tangible property".
So, to this point, with regard to the "hail event", I think we have continuous and repeated exposure to the harmful hail, and further, the loss of granulation (one of the three essential components of a shingle) from the "hail event" is a physical injury to the shingle due to the loss of one of its components from a peril insured against.
Section I - Perils Insured Against, Coverage A, says; ".... we insure against the risk of direct loss ....". I can not see any argument that the hail is not the direct cause of the loss of granulation.
An examination of the exclusions applicable to Coverage A, would be the next step.
Direct loss by hail, being a covered peril, can not be considered as the cause of "wear and tear, marring, deterioration" to the shingles; and hence that exclusion could not be applied.
Direct loss by hail, as a covered peril, can not be considered as the cause of "settling, shrinking .... of .... roofs ...."; and hence that exclusion could not be applied.
I see no other exclusions in that area, worthy of considering.
I do not see anything in Section I - Exclusions, or Section I - Conditions, or Section I and II - Conditions; that would be applicable to the discussion.
So tell me - how, why and where - you feel a granulation loss from hail falling on this roof, is not an indemnifiable loss? It's not suffice to say - "that is how I was told, taught, or thought."
Show me from the policy wording, where you don't feel this is a covered loss; if you think that.
However, the much more difficult exercise, is the determination of the measure of loss. I don't have the answer to that, nor have I heard one worth supporting.
I do suggest, that if you separate the two issues - coverage from damage - that the former will become clearer. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 12:31:16
|
The granules are a wearable surface. A roof is designed to shed 2-4% of its granules on a yearly basis. That's why the roof wears out. The granules eventually fall off. The maker of the roof put the granules on the shingles knowing that they would, through ordinary weather occurences be worn off.
I looked out my window just a minute ago and there are granules in the gutters right now. I know that if I go to the downspouts I will find granules on the ground there too. So, has there been a covered loss to the roof on my building? Granules are obviously being shed?
The answer is no. The insurance policy does not cover the normal weathering of a product as designed. Paint eventually fades, cracks and peals, this is not a covered loss.
I have a State Farm policy handy. It is a 7955 homeowners policy. I find under Section 1-losses not insured 1. g. wear, tear, marring, scratching, deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect or mechanical breakdown.
Since shingles are designed to shed granules and they do so at a varying rate dependent upon weather patterns, (less in a dry year, more in a wet year)granular loss from small hail is not covered because it is simply normal wear and tear to a wearable surface.
|
Edited by - KileAnderson on 03/10/2003 12:31:51 |
|
|
|
ShermaninCO
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 12:45:23
|
| Loss of granules (moderate loss) occurs with each rain storm, reguardless of Hail. Do we then owe for a new roof every time it rains? If so, I'm going to become a roofing contractor[:o)]. Even here in the high desert, there would be a fortune to be made. In the spring time wouldn't even have to nail them down they would get replaced daily. |
Bill Sherman
|
Edited by - ShermaninCO on 03/10/2003 13:04:40 |
|
|
|
rugg
Canada
14 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 14:24:14
|
Kile, I have to agree and state again that if there is no physical damages ( puncturing or bruising of the shingle) granule loss is not covered.
CCarr- I do not agree that this would be covered if you read the policy as you have quoted, loss of granules is not a direct physical loss. If I hear you right you are saying that as soon as an insured calls in a claim and there are granules sitting in there eaves (gutters) that all there is to do is measure the roof and pay the claim, that is complete nonsense.
It all comes down to your definition of direct physical loss. A moderate amount of granules loss should not be covered. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 14:52:46
|
Reg, in your support of Kile's post, are you limiting the determination of any "physical damage" to the shingle, to only a visual observation, of only a puncture or bruise?
In regards to your rebuttal to me, you didn't hear me right .... . My comment, ".... determination of the measure of loss", was just my way of saying how do you determine the amount of loss (not physically measuring per say).
What is your definition of "direct physical loss", regardless of the type of property?
If you are saying, "a moderate amount of granules loss should not be covered", what is 'moderate'; and then what about more than a 'moderate' amount of granules loss?
Aside from any carrier position or directives, given the policy language that is available, what would we do with the scenario I presented; adding the fact that the insured pulls out a paid contract showing his roof was replaced with new product only 3 or 4 months ago, as he points to the piles of granulation loss at the bottom of each downspout? |
|
|
|
ShermaninCO
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 15:03:32
|
Clayton, I think I understand your position now. You are saying that the lost of granules after a hail storm is damage but you are not saying that just because of the loss of granules that the roof should be replaced. Did I understand that correctly.
In reguard to the 3-4 month old roof I would expect to see more granules in the gutters due to the lost of granules that were not adhered to the asphalt (riders or clingers).
The amount of granules in the gutter would not determine the severity of loss but an inspection of the shingle as to wether or not the UV protection of the asphalt was intact. |
Bill Sherman
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 15:27:06
|
Exactly Bill. I am suggesting - following available policy language - that there is a direct loss to the shingles following a hail storm, causing property damage if granulation loss results (i.e. separation of the roofing product); even in the absence of visual evidence of puncture or bruising. The hail storm does not create the "wear and tear, marring, or deterioration".
I never suggested, and certainly didn't intend my thoughts to be suggesting, that the above situation would result in it being necessary to replace a roof. I refer everyone back to my last two paragraphs of my first post to this thread.
I have no idea how to properly determine the amount or extent, of that loss scenario.
Again, I think it is important to separate the issues - coverage from damage; or my favorite phrase from Jim Lakes - "cause, coverage, cost", and that is the order in which claims must be pursued.
Lets flog the issues of cause and coverage; before we take on what I think is much more difficult to discern in this scenario - cost, because I think there may be a lot more to that, other than replacement of the shingles. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 15:39:28
|
Clayton, what do you mean by "The hail storm does not create the "wear and tear, marring, or deterioration"." If due to a hail storm, some granules are knocked loose, then it most certainly does cause wear and tear to the surface of the shingle, as does rain, sleet, snow, wind, heat, gravity, foot trafic, birds and several other factors.
If the product functions as designed, i.e. shedding of the granules from weathering, how can you say direct physical damage has occured? The product is simply performing as designed. If I drive my truck over a ruff road, the tires will wear faster than if I drive over a nice smooth road. Can I file a claim on my auto policy because I believe that even though you can't look at the tire and see any damage, the life of the tire has been reduced by driving over the rough road? I would be laughed out of the claims office if I presented that because wear and tear is not covered by insurance.
|
Edited by - KileAnderson on 03/10/2003 15:44:47 |
|
|
|
ShermaninCO
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2003 : 16:01:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by KileAnderson
The granules are a wearable surface. A roof is designed to shed 2-4% of its granules on a yearly basis. That's why the roof wears out. The granules eventually fall off. The maker of the roof put the granules on the shingles knowing that they would, through ordinary weather occurences be worn off.
Clayton, my agrument would be the that the design on shingles is for the granules to shed during weathering ie. a wearable surface, if the hail was not severe enough to cause bruising is that not an ordinary weather occurence.
CAUSE: Was that granule loss any more severe than a hard rain? Did the insured notice normal granular loss because he was looking closely because of the hail?
COVERAGE: Further if it is indeed damage as you suggest then should there not be coverage? |
Bill Sherman
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
