| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tuckernotis
USA
19 Posts |
 Posted - 02/29/2004 : 14:39:54
|
Hail is rare in Louisiana and when it does happen, it's usually of the small pea size variety. This event was very unusual to say the least. It is a good observation that maybe an inspector that only works this area may not be very experienced in hail damage. I have appointments with two roofers (God help me) and if they both point out the same damage and concur I will take it to the insurer. Not sure what to do about the holey shingles. Too big an area to cover with tarp. We have a 3000' sq ft house and God knows how much roof area. Thanks for all the help. It is truly appreciated.
|
Edited by - Tuckernotis on 02/29/2004 17:32:32 |
 |
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2004 : 18:17:08
|
Kile, You are correct in the statement that the staffers will not have the experience that someone such as yourself has.
The comment that was made was not to criticize youin any way. Are you still having fun on the almost one year old storm in Paducha? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2004 : 19:36:27
|
| Yep, still handling cleanup here in Paducah. Since I've been here an empty lot has suddenly sprouted and fully functional Sam's Wholesale Club. I remember when it was just a grass field, now I'm shopping there. |
|
|
|
stormchaser1
6 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2004 : 20:04:34
|
| granular loss decreases the life of the shingle. The whole purpose of the granules is to protect it from the exposures of the sun and weather. Granular loss depreciates the life of the roof therefore depreciates the value of the house, isn't that what insurance is for???? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 02/29/2004 : 21:24:20
|
| Here we go again. If wind blows granules off the roof which it does all the time, is that a covered loss? If rain washes granules off the roof, is that a covered loss? What about the granules that are dislodged when the roofer is installing the roof? Granules are shed over the life of the roof. It is the natural state of the product and part of its life cycle. Granules in the gutter do not a hail loss make. |
|
|
|
Todd Summers
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 11:21:15
|
Ms. Gray,
Truly interesting photos, especially the photos of the hailstones themselves... ck out the crystal like protrusions. Looks pretty hard to me and although I have not seen the roof (as Kile said), I would look at them closely on my hands and knees. One thing I would suggest is to take some better close up photos of any bruised or "holey" shingles as the photos you have posted don't really show any actual damage. The light marks that are visible appear to be mildew marks as mentioned earlier.
You have received some excellent advice here and the only other thing I have to add is that you have brought up another common misconception regarding hail claims and premiums. For the most part, as far as I know, premiums are increased by underwriting departments based on criteria such as living in a hail proned area. If it is determined to be a high risk area then premiums in that entire area are increased, whether you personally have had a hail claim in the past or not. This is how hail and other weather related events are handled by underwriting, whereas, several liability or theft claims for example might be handled on an individual basis.
Good luck with your reinspection, and maybe the adjuster will find damage with a closer look and maybe not. I always explain to my insureds that the damage has to be there to be touched, felt and photographed or it is simply not there or has not shown up yet. |
|
|
|
Manmut
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 12:51:39
|
| I would agree that a closer photo of the damage is required. You'll notice that there is no damage evident, at least in your photos, in those areas of the roof below the metal stacks. In fact, the roof is discolored in that area in a way that is similiar to the disputed damage areas. As an adjuster, I would want a close-up of a single shingle, then one of a bruise, and finally one of the underside of a bruised shingle. |
Patrick W. Laws |
|
|
|
Tuckernotis
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 13:24:57
|
| From what I understand, the discolored area below the stacks is caused by the mildew not growing there. The lead or other metal inhibits the growth. So the lighter colored areas will show up lighter since the mildew is scraped off. We did take close up pictures of the holes in the shingles. On the bruises, I'm not sure I know what I'm looking for except that the bitumen is showing through at the impact sites and there is a depression. Even where the bitumen shows, the overall color is lighter than the surrounding area. So, we'll see. I'll try to get the other photos loaded on webshots tonight. Thanks again. |
|
|
|
rbryanhines
22 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 15:07:54
|
According to most of the posts on this topic it appears the consensus is that granular loss unless accompanied by hail bruising or impacts should not be considered hail damage.
I'm not sure that the insurance carriers previous claims handling concurs with this consensus.
Questions to think about!
Do the manufactures of shingles consider granular loss to be damage to the shingle?
Is hail considered a normal weather event?
Who should one ask to define damage to a product, the insurance comapany or the manufacturer of the product in questions.
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 16:59:35
|
I would have a 3rd party engineer, like Haag, or some other engineer, what constitutes damage to the product. I don't think the manufacturer would exactly be objective on the subject. All engineering texts that I have seen say that a shingle is not damaged unless the matting is bruised.
If hail isn't a normal weather event then I don't know what else you would call it. It is produced by the weather and it happens every year all over the country. That would be pretty normal to me. |
Edited by - Tom Toll on 03/03/2004 07:56:17 |
|
|
|
rbryanhines
22 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 18:54:22
|
I've noted many post allude to roofers and PAs being biased . I agree with this , However all parties involved in the insurance claims process have some sort of bias. This includes Haag!
I don't think hail is a normal weather event. Weather sources such as the weather channel and NOAA's stance is that hail is not a normal weather event. In that if you take the sum of all reported weather events and divide that with the nubmber of hail events . The percentage of hail events to weather events is quite low. Think of it like this , at my house in the Woodlands Texas in a ten year period (5,256,000 minutes) it has hailed a total of about 12 minutes. I would not define a hail event in my area as normal , more like abnormal.
I think this is why the shingle warranty reads as follows:
Limitations
This warranty provides protection against any shingle defects that arise in the course of ordinary and everyday wear and tear to the roof caused by normal exposure to the elements. It does not provide protection against damage caused by situations and events beyond normal exposure conditions, such as, but not limited to:
winds, including gusts, greater than those listed in Table 1 for each product, lightning, hurricane (see Limited Wind Warranty for hurricane wind exception), tornado, hailstorm, earthquake, fire, explosion, flood or falling objects.
Notice the verbage everyday "wear and tear"
Hail does not fall into this catagory! It may happen everyday but we are not talking about anywhere in the world. We are are talking about one specific insured's address!
Someone stated in an earlier post that "2 to 4 % of the granulars fall of the shingle every year". I agree with this statement. However this figure does not include the loss due to any hail events. I have researched this info from GAF and Certainteed. I've spoke with Haag and Rimkus and the studies of the amount of granulars lost did not include those lost due to hail damage. Test roofs were put under the mock conditions of sun and rain. Hail was not simulated on these roofs.
Based on the above info and my understanding of the insurance policy. If my investigation reveals hail damage did contribute to accelerated granular loss my recommendation to the insurance carrier is that a covered loss occured and roof repalcement is needed.
|
Edited by - rbryanhines on 03/01/2004 19:10:09 |
|
|
|
gloverb
USA
54 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 19:36:38
|
rbryanhines,
Most of us probably agree that there is more granule loss due to hail, but I think there is an inherent problem in determining the extent of granule loss. How do you measure it, & how do you establish proof of loss if there is no other damage to the shingles?
The terms that I have seen relating to granule loss are moderate or excessive. What is moderate & what is excessive? Is excessive 1/4" in the gutters or 1/2", & what if there are no gutters? I would love to consider only granule loss to determine hail damage. I could make a lot more money.
Probably most manufacturers & most roofers would consider granule loss as damage to the roof. After all they are in the business of selling shingles.
|
Edited by - gloverb on 03/01/2004 19:39:42 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 20:08:17
|
We can play this what if game all we want, but what if, as I said in an earlier post, you get 20 inches of rain in a 24-48 hour period? That isn't an everyday occurence, but it can and has happened. So does the carrier now have to replace the roof of every house that had that kind of rain?
The bottom line is a line must be drawn. Standards must be set. Has anyone ever proven that the minimal amount of granular loss that a pea sized hail event causes actually causes a roof to fail prematurely? Have you ever been on a roof that was damaged by hail 9 years ago and never replaced? I was, and it didn't leak. The homeowners were paid for a roof in 1995, and they never replaced it. They saw their neighbors getting new roofs this year so they filed another claim. Sure enough they had new hail damage, along with old hail damage. When I asked about it they admited to not replacing it in 95. The roof is now 18 years old and has been damaged by 2 hail storms and is still water tight. I'd be willing to bet that if I come back in 2 years when the roof is at the end of it's useful life, it will look and function pretty much the way it does today.
So, I have seen a roof, damaged by real hail and it will still manage to serve out it's useful life. Where is the loss? Now, this is a roof with REAL hail damage. I seriously doubt that a roof that lost a few granules is going to fail earlier than a roof that was never touched by small hail. |
|
|
|
rbryanhines
22 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 21:33:00
|
Most of the posts on this topic have been the "what if game". Insurance is the ultimate what if game!!!!
A line has been drawn, However it is frequently moved by the carriers. This is usually done during the reinspection process by the staff adjuster.
Haag and Rimkus agree that a shingle exposed to hail (even small hail)
may fail earlier than a shingle not exposed to hail.
Please explain the point of your story about the roof that had earlier sustained hail damage. It appears that your opinion is that a roof is not damaged unless it leaks. Carriers pay millions a year on roofs that do not leak.
(Kile,please reread your post concerning the damage to the patio cover. It states:
Karen, those are very interesting pictures. I noticed you said that you believe that the damage to your patio roof was only cosmetic. In actuality fresh hail damage is mostly cosmetic. But this damage can accelerate the deterioration of the material and early failure.)
Kile, you asked in your previous post "Where is the loss? The loss is that there is a probability that the useful life of the roof has been accelerated.(The same reason why carriers pay for hail impacts and bruises.)
This post is not a slam on anyone. I'm just being honest about what I have seen during my years in the industry. We do not always show consistency in claims handling. The way we handle claims is set by the expectations of the carriers we work for.
|
Edited by - rbryanhines on 03/01/2004 22:08:45 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2004 : 22:03:29
|
| Hey gang: Dont knock public adjusters and plaintiff attorneys. Why? if these guys were not out there... you would not be climbing roofs... because the homeowners would have to send thier readable digital photos to New York City, Bloomington, Schamberg, Northridge or Madison for the adjuster to inspect before the proof of loss is accepted. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
