| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
 Posted - 03/26/2003 : 08:53:46
|
Hey Steve, the 'inside man', welcome back.
I certainly hope that not too many people following this thread, will be inclined to start twisting the arm of their vendor storm boss; regarding granule loss or DV. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with any vendor adjusting company.
As this issue evolves, well past any discussion on this web site, it will be the carriers who will consider and determine the genesis of the concepts discussed here; and in turn advise their vendors accordingly.
We will look back some day with amusing interest on one of your statements, Steve; that is generally echoed by most at this time. That is, "the shingles themselves must have hail damage to them i.e. impacts and/or bruising". What that statement says, is that damage only exists, when it is visually identifiable, using current and basic means of eye contact; without any supporting technical or mechanical means of measurement.
That is somewhat akin to sitting in a boat on a lake, in 10 feet of water; and not being able to see the bottom, concluding that it must be polluted.
A "tomorrow" ahead of us, will provide more refined technical methods to determine "damage" to composite asphalt shingles. |
 |
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 09:13:22
|
Whomever said our job was easy, must have been under the influence.
We have to please EVERYBODY, the insured, the IA vendor, The carrier, the storm manager, the examiner, and all we have to do is be a robot?
It is incumbent on all of us to "do the right thing", and treat the loss as what it is. A direct physical loss is a covered peril, period.
Hopefully, one day soon, the carriers will start to treat the insured's the way they would want to be treated, had they a loss on their own property.
Those that choose to be led around by the nose are welcome to do so. [xx(]
Those that choose to do the proper job, may find themselves not working for some carriers, but really proud of themselves.[:D]
Sure, they sign the checks, and while they are always the BOSS they are not necessarily always right, nor always ethical.
"Unto thine own self , be true". |
Edited by - katadj on 03/26/2003 09:16:15 |
|
|
|
inside man
45 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2003 : 09:15:52
|
Thanks for your thoughts CC. It's good to be "outside" again !!!
Has anyone heard of a testing process in which a shingle is removed from a conspicuous area of a suspected hail damaged roof, the shingle is stripped down to the matting (either chemically or by scrapping) and then the matting is examined for holes which would be caused by hail. If holes are present it is concluded that the shingle and therefore the roof is hail damaged and should be replaced (or at least the slope that the shingle was taken from). If the matting was not penetrated the claim was denied. I used this testing process several times while I was a staffer for NW in Charlotte NC. I can't remember the names of the people that did the testing but there were two different companies that did it for us.
In retrospect, after obtaining a great deal more experiance handling hail claims after joining the storm adjuster ranks, it seems to me that this would be a faulty process since only one shingle represents a very small portion of a roof slope and to a greater extent the entire roof. Hail could certainly damage a roof and miss one particular shingle quite easily. This process was successfully used at that time but I have no idea if this practice is still employed.
Anyone have any experiance with this testing method? Does anyone else see the faulty logic that I think exists here? |
|
|
|
Catmandale
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2003 : 00:23:51
|
Steve,
I think that it is indeed very possible that the single shingle you tested may have been missed entirely by hail. Hail varies in size, force and volume in any given storm. It may be difficult to discern a pattern. It might be prudent to test shingles with obvious hits along with shingles that show minimal mat exposure.
I still say that granular loss that results in exposure of the mat is damage and should be compensated. In that scenario, the issue of Diminished Value is moot because there is a direct phyiscial loss, only the extent of damage is at question, ie...in my opinion, exposing the mat leads to early failure of the roof system, in the same waya bruised shingle does.
It seems to me that the argument over Diminished Value comes up when it is a purely economic loss - such as when a car has been damaged then fully repaired, and the "stigma" of the crash results in a someone seeing the vehicle as less desirable than one which has not been in an accident.
Mold claims may have this effect on homes which have had water damage and repairs. A buyer may be wary of a home that had stachybotrys(sp?)even though it was remediated. This is not really a perfect comparison as there is some evidence that mold spores may remain dormant in a small colony only to bloom again when water is re-introduced.
As to your comment about keeping the mouth shut and doing as you are told...if only I had more common sense and less conscience. If issues are not discussed, things will never change. I think that few of us here are sheep to be led about by the nose. We wouldn't be hanging out here if we didn't see the big picture.
Dale Strain |
"When we thought that we had all the answers,
suddenly all the questions changed."
Mario Benedetti (1920); Uruguayan writer.
|
|
|
|
jcc1138
12 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2003 : 18:51:26
|
In looking at the issue of DV and Granule loss, are we also seeing an issue of possible payments for issues where the policy is being used for what could be minor issues, rather than for the larger losses that it is priced for?
I have seen a rise in the desire for insurance to be used as a maintenance policy, which keeps me busy but makes the costs go up.
In talking to Certainteed on an issue of a roof, they advised me that they did overflood the granules onto the roof and that granule loss is expected. We are talking about grains that rely on the asphalt to hold onto the substrate. I would look at the amount of the granule loss versus the exposure of the substrate before getting into a DV (or cosmetic allowance for the older adjusters) issue. |
|
|
|
RicVitiello
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 11:58:11
|
Hail damage on a shingle roof is a specific and identifiable blemish just as a dent in an automobile surface would be. No dent = no damage, even though just like on the roof, sun, rain, snow etc. will weather the surface and all take an unmeasurable toll on the survice life.
Ric Vitiello
Senior Roof Consultant
Donan Engineering Co.
Louisville KY |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 18:07:56
|
Has any one done a hail claim on damage over six months old? If you have, did you find the damage harder to identify? I did and it was dificult, it reminded me of tracks in the snow, the hits no longer look like hail hits. I think it would depend on the type of shingle as to how the damage shows up after six months. The shingles I had a problem with were laminated, arch.
They had gone through a summer before inspection, I think this made a difference. There seemed to be a greater granual loss around the damage. |
Edited by - Newt on 12/16/2003 18:13:37 |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 12/16/2003 : 18:09:48
|
| Thanks Ric, but; you did not speak on the biggie "too old and brittle to replace-repair". |
|
|
|
leoncrow
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 12:05:01
|
| If insured wants paid for granules, pay them a loss of value. Be sure to explain that if a storm takes the roof the following year, the loss of value will be deducted and a second deductable taken. |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 12:36:09
|
| Disagree 100% with Leon. Forget loss of value, its 100% or 0% |
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 14:13:51
|
I agree. How do you accurately gauge granular loss from one event, excluding all prior events and which carrier endorses that settlement method?
Not attacking you Lean, but we shall show you the way.....if you want to follow |
|
|
|
leoncrow
USA
16 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 16:11:30
|
Would you pay 100% if an insured called you after a rain storm. How do you determine loss of value, 20 year shingles cost x-amount. Make your best determination of amount of granular loss aa divide into 20. We make determinations of use life all the time. I in know way think that granule loss without shingle damage should be paid.
|
|
|
|
catmanager
USA
102 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 17:51:12
|
Leon, if you had an event that caused granular loss on a five year old roof, if there was actually a carrier that allowed you to do so, your method of determining granular loss is flawed.
You are forgetting that normal wear and tear and prior granular loss that occurred in the first five years is not covered by the single event that brought you to the roof in the first place. Sudden and accidental occurrence, eh?
My point is even if you were to be working for a carrier that would allow that (name them please), since you would have no idea what amount of granular loss occurred after the roof was installed but before your event...do you see where I'm going?
If you do not agree with paying for granular loss anyway, what are we even discussing here? |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 18:34:57
|
Catamanger
He is from South Dakota...He is trying to stay warm by moving his fingers on the keyboard.....and here I thought you were so observant!!!!LOL LOL |
|
|
|
trader
USA
236 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2004 : 19:22:27
|
| Cold day subject. If the composition roof shingles weight is split like the mfg states in 1/3 rds. matt 1/3, asphalt 1/3, crushed slate 1/3 and per sq. is 220 lbs. How much DV do you have on a front slope with 10 sqs with a full gutter across the front, the roof is 5 years old, the gutters were installed with the roof, and have never been cleaned, and the homeowner/contractor can show you 2 1/4 inches of slate in a 13 oz coffee can??? Lets never hear the word "loss of granules" in Texas . If we do hear this word we will track you down and burn your license with Marvin Zindler (Channel 13) recording the event on the steps of the "mold office" |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is granule loss considered hail damage?
Forum Locked
Topic Locked
