| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JWill
USA
28 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2003 : 11:45:31
|
Has anyone ever been on a roof when one of the haag inspectors was there? I have an interesting scenario to share once all has responded.
In my travels I've experienced several of such and each is different. Please tell of yours. |
J. Williams |
 |
|
|
webmaster@loridiaz.com
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2003 : 11:50:14
|
Jennifer:
Contractors in our state always pull that one. I have some documentation that I received on the subject of hail. Hopefully I can find it.
Some insurance companies will not pay for "hail damage" if it does not damage the "structural integrity of the roof". I have been up on roofs where damage to the vents due to hail were obvious but there was no damage to the asphalt shingle itself. His remark about it showing up six months later is a good one. I could probably name the contractor in your area that told you that one. |
|
|
|
webmaster@loridiaz.com
USA
5 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 03:47:13
|
While we are on the subject of hail...I have a question for everyone. I wish I had read "watch the company you work for". I just worked four claims for them and I'm wondering if I'll get paid. I don't work for them anymore.
Anyway. I worked another hail claim.
I hope I can explain this roof correctly where you guys can understand it. Large gable with three smaller gables attached to the large gable in the front of the home. One smaller gable in the rear and then a flat lean to section. Asphalt shingle approximately five years old.
The inside company is Kemper. With Kemper you have to call the adjuster while you are at the scene. The hail barely damaged the front three slopes and there were spot damage on the two main slopes. (We are talking maybe less than five to ten shingles on the entire roof) The damage is minimal. Seven houses had their insurance companies pay for new roofs. My entire scope to replace the entire roof was approximately 30 square to replace.
I had recommended in my report $750 that would actually repair the spotted areas. I had also mentioned to the adjuster that homes on both sides of the insured had their entire roofs replaced and several homes across the street. I explained to the adjuster that if "the insured made a stink" about spot repairs to pay for half of the roof and then pay the rest once she actually replaces the roof. Her home is well kept and the area is well kept. Although the structural integrity of the roof was fine on the main gables I had included them as part of the replacement of the entire roof in case the kemper adjuster wanted to pay it.
I finished this claim two-three weeks ago and the adjuster left a message for me last night wanting to know "how many inches per square were damaged". I did not call him back yet. I can tell you barely any inches per square were damaged. The Insured had a contractor (I bet it was the same one for the other seven houses) tell her she had to have the entire roof replaced. (Sound familiar?)
Anyway my question is how would you guys approach payment? I would like to have an answer for this guy at Kemper today if possible. This is the second claim I have handled for Kemper and I get the strange feeling they don't like to pay people. |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 06:48:07
|
| Give him an honest answer...were they small hits??Tell him so.....How many hits per test square were there and what is the RDF factor for that roof?? Are repairs feasible???? Or is the roof shot, making repairs most likely unsuccessful......Kemper,ummm, you are probably working for ICA, Orlando......HAVE you spoken to the branch manager as to what to do....her name is Ms. Antinucci.....she should be able to guide you, shouldn't she???? After all, she is the manager of the claims office...... |
Edited by - jlombardo on 10/08/2003 07:00:30 |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 14:49:37
|
I have adjusters liscence, and also am a roofer. How can you say that granules being knocked off by hail is not damage?
I was on roof a roof in Texas, with an adjuster from Farmers. There had to be an inch of granules in the gutters. The aforementioned adjuster said "these are 30 year shingles, they are designed to lose granules" obviously he is wrong. That was in May. I met a new adjuster this week and got the homeowner a new roof. Granule damage leads to failure of the shingle.
Thanks
Brooks |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 15:26:40
|
| We have 5 pages of debate on the aforementioned, found in the Coverage forum, under the thread "Is granule loss considered hail damage?". Remember, lots of lovely 'discussions' about diminished value, and those sorts of things? |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 18:41:14
|
Yes, to the roofer who wants to know... go see the varied opinions at the forum Clayton mentioned.
Let's not muddy my nice friendly hail damage play house with this disagreeable conversation.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 19:01:10
|
| Granular loss from hail is not shingle damage any more than granular loss from wind, or rain or foot traffic is damage. If you got an adjutster to pay for hail damage and there was no visible impact mark anywhere on the shingle then you and that adjuster are complicit in insurance fraud. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 19:05:22
|
| Webmaster, are you sure he asked you how many inches per square or how many hits per square. I've never hear anyone use inches damaged per square as a measure for evaluating hail damage. |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 20:54:04
|
Here we go CCarr! The beast has awakened! Forgive me Jen!
Brooks, what is granule damage? Please explain.
Also, Webmister, to tell whether a roof is hail damaged or not, you have to look at the shingles on the roof, not the granules in the gutters. Please send me a copy of the "granules per inch" rule for composition roofing that Farmers puts out. I will frame it next to Good Hands' "Adjusting for Dummies" book. I collect nonsense.
I've missed ya Ice Dog! I'll be around.
CD |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 21:33:25
|
Oh my Hurricane, I hope "it" doesn't happen to your cozy thread. Honestly, my earlier post wasn't meant as a 'stir stick' for this thread, but more as a 'strainer' to try and stop any erosion of this thread that I speculated could happen after reading the post I responded to.
An inch of granules in the gutters equals a requirement for a new roof? That reminds me back in the great days of the early 70's as a staff adjuster. Workloads and manpower requirements were measured by the height of the pending claim file piles on one's desk and surrounding floor. In the days before everyday use of computer technology, new file counts and closed ratios were kept manually, but didn't carry near the impact of the aforementioned piles. It took the semi-annual visit by the semi-grand poobah from HO to do an audit, where he would have to look around your piles to speak to an adjuster, to finally conclude at the Friday morning wrap up that he thought we could use another adjuster.
Yes it was a period of fast growth and / or poor underwriting in a thriving region, but the knots on our ties were not too tight to quickly realize how we should supplement the actual piles on our desks twice a year with filing cabinet dogs, to make the piles teeter ever so high to ensure approval for another person. To take from Kile's concluding statement, comparatively, I was a co-conspirator in complicit human resources fraud. Hopefully, I won't be judged as harshly as is due in the situation he describes. We needed more people to round out our company ball team and have a bigger crowd at our Christmas parties. |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2003 : 21:49:57
|
| Clayton, that sure does sound like a great employment program. If we want to jumpstart the economy down here maybe we should stack a bunch of files on our desks and we can solve our little job slump. |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2003 : 09:28:57
|
Greetings Kile:
The only person a party to insurance fraud would be you, not paying the insured for a roof. Granule loss in this case was caused by pea sized hail, there were thousands of hits on this roof.
I know you guys know everything though, because you have a coiple of years experience, so I will re-evaluate, my years in the building industry.
Later
Brooks |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2003 : 09:39:21
|
Sorry, but this subject has me worked up.
Cat Daddy & Kile, you are trying to tell me, that if you go up on a roof, and granules are knocked off by the thousands, that this is not hail damage. Just because there are not huge bruises does not mean there is no damage. I have roofs to do until next April,( our main business is torch down, on small commercial projects) I am not trying to scam anyone, I am looking out for the homeowners. Then it turns into competition. On 3 re-inspects I have been on, the homeowner got a roof in all 3 cases.
Looking forward to the competition.
|
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2003 : 09:45:52
|
I like that phrase "say what you mean and mean what you say". Brooks, if you say, "there were thousands of hits on the roof", is that a finding based on your and the attending adjuster's inspection of impact marks on the shingles? If so, the conclusion about a new roof requirement would / could be credible and correct. However, if as you said previously about the granule accumulation in the gutters, is your measuring stick, i.e. equating granule accumulation per ounce or per handful to per 100 assumed hits; that doesn't seem to be an acceptable method of shingle damage assessment or evaluation.
Accusations about "fraud" really don't belong in this discussion for many reasons. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
