| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
 Posted - 10/20/2003 : 12:29:46
|
I think Lon is Brooks' hero. A roofer with a thesaurus!
What about it Brooksie? |
 |
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 14:26:51
|
Kile,
Here's the deal: Your inclusion of a factor to cover the extra material by adding it to pricing is simply a line you've been taught to repeat.
I'm willing to PROVE my math on a job site. Are you willing to PROVE your point by showing me actual past documented surveys that make it clear to the respondent that the tear off square price should include extra areas of shingles?
That is the basic question - not whether you can teach some fire restoration contractor or sheetrocker to "do the job" (not always a REAL roof job) for an agreed price. You DO write down a number of off squares and therein lies the lie.
You know those squares don't represent the true number of removed squares. It is even simple enough for YOU to understand. You fill out the worksheet using an incorrect number of squares for removal EVERY SINGLE TIME!
You have consistently mixed the apples and oranges to serve your own purpose. Most, not all, adjusters and roofers understand that unit pricing is made up of two things: units and prices.
When you figure "On" you figure a certain number of squares and those squares NEVER vary in size or volume on a per square basis after the unit is selected, yet when you figure off, they do. I can prove it and you can't.
It's really very, very simple.
I take it by your prior sidestepping non-answer that the reason your are avoiding betting me on the outcome is because you are AFRAID of the outcome proving you wrong. We don't have to make the winnings illegal - the loser could just agree to roof a poor person's house as a charitable contribution.
I'm sure you could even get a few of these $100K-$170K per year guys to chip in to help cover your losses in case the volume exceeded the net figure you came up with.
After all, what does it cost to roof a poor person's house? $1500 - $2500?
Surely the 15 or 20 'Lon bashers' here would love nothing better than to prove once andd for all that my theory is way off base.
If you include extra squares to be removed on the tear off only without quantifying them, then the unit size changes no matter what you say.
The feeble excuse of building it into the price is lame and you know it.
I expect your usual off topic Lon bashing reply and I'm sure you won't disappointment me by changing your style and accepting a perfectly reasonble way to settle the issue.
By the way, go back and look the FIG letter posted a year ago which was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act from the Texas Department of Insurance.
I've also got worksheets PROVING "on" squares were the same as "off" squares with cedar shingle roofs and they've now been changed to "net off" squares. FIG is not the only set of worksheets I have and they were voluntarily given by the consumers for the purpose of showing the change.
Bet you're not even going to be able to muster enough financial support from all the rich guys here to make the bet referred to. My bet is that the bashing will continue to include the incessant innuendos concerning my ancestry and sexual orientation (which seem to be okay with the admin/mods of this board if you are Catdaddy) and that I'll continue to get warnings or an outright ban from Ghostbuster who told ME to be civil and non-abrasive directly underneath a much more abusive Catdaddy post.
Last year, if you'll remember, Jim Flynt could only muster objections consisting of "How long have you been a roofer, Mr. Sterling" and theories about alien intervention leading to supernatural typos in the posted FIG letter. He was then successfully able to convince moderators to remove his drivel from the entire thread.
This hasn't changed since I left. The board mentality is a cyber "Planet of Apes" and since Jim's (Cornelius in the movie) removal, several have been jockeying for the position.
Kile, by continuing to ignore direct questions and by failing to prove your points in the face of someone else who is willing to do so to support his allegations, you are quickly becoming the leading candidate to be the "Keeper of the Ancient Scrolls" - Cornelius II.
Heresy?
|
Lon |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 17:03:50
|
Lon, when applying a new roof, if you cut shingles and pieces fall to the ground and stay there, how can you be removing the same number of squares, pounds of shingles, etc, that you purchased or are in your calculations that include waste???????? Part of that figure is in the trash!
You said it was very simple. The answer seems so to me.
And this with no insults I might add.
CD |
Edited by - CatDaddy on 10/20/2003 17:04:44 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 17:13:30
|
Lon, When we pay to remove shingles we pay for the removal of shingles in a specific area. That area is figured in squares. That square may include some overlap of material. We are not paying for the material, we are only paying for the labor to remove it in that area.
When we pay to put a roof on we put down how many squares you must purchase to cover the actual area that is on the roof. This is the last time I will address this issue. I am right and you are simply wrong. There is no need for mathematical calculations because as I said before, we are discussing apples and oranges. I already proved to you with a real life example when I showed you the roofer was charging 25 off and I was paying 28.90 off.
Besides all of that, Brooks, a roofer, has admitted that he doesn't figure waste into tear off. So apparently it works for him too.
Next. |
Edited by - KileAnderson on 10/20/2003 17:18:56 |
|
|
|
fivedaily
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 17:46:10
|
I am glad to see we are kind of back on the topic of roofs and not bashing...
Jennifer |
Edited by - fivedaily on 10/20/2003 17:57:37 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 18:05:31
|
This is deja-vu all over again. Lon, I am trying my best to winnow thru the bully-boy tone here and put forward your contention.
Here we go...a simple 2x5x10 gable roof. Regular ol' 3 tab.
There is 100sq feet of roof area. There is also 10' of ridge and 40' of starter. (That's 10' on each base and 10' on the two sides. According to insurance practices, we figure tear of to be...100sq feet, right? This is the actual area of roofing we measured.
I believe what Lon is saying is, 'What about the starters and ridge?' Does our Lon want to be paid extra for the tear off of the starters and ridge? Sure sounds like it. Technically, is it there? Should it be paid for also? If it is there, why do we not pay for it? What is the history as to why it is not paid for? Is there some space alien/carrier bean counter honcho concocting a vast conspiracy? To say that it all comes off at the same time is sometimes mentioned, is that a valid contention? Or, is there additional labor to remove it as well as final prep on the bare roof? And, what about the old felt? Is this another item that can be dragged into the discussion?
Ya see, Lon, there is no acrimony in this post as is in yours. We do not wish to arbitrarily cross swords unless someone comes in trying to bully us here in the clubhouse. You are welcome here if you can leave the foul attitude out in the yard. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 21:50:55
|
 This is more like it, fellas!
I appreciate the dialogue rather than the references to my chosen carrer of flipping burgers and the pre-mature unveiling of my romantic leanings!
Houston, we have a copy!
First, well said to the inimitable Ghost who no doubt has told us baddies all privately to behave.
Next Kile, believe me when I say I see your point and if I had started my business in a state where roofing labor had been hourly for residential work, I would have no problem with simply figuring "bottom line".
However, as we all know. That is not the way it is in the land of OU victims.
The picture you refer to is quite clear and understandable but lacks some thought given to logical progression. I'll try to explain in a kinder and gentler way.
Your scenario of the tear off relates to a "surface area" only. Granted, the shingles you are questioning me about lie right underneath the shingles I'm already tearing off and add, AS YOU SAY, no more square footage of shingles from a surface measurement standpoint.
We all agree so far that (pick a number) 4000 square feet is all the deck covers. We all agree so far that the surface area measurement of shingles does not exceed 4000 feet.
However, here comes the difference - and let's don't get ahead of ourselves here - we all already agree that some of that surface area has a few extra shingles underneath the surface area shingles.
Many people who have only watched roofing go on or being torn of have a simplistic view of its ease or difficulty as the case may be. However, we all agree that tearing off a few extra shingles is "some" extra work - granted there will be varying opinions on just how much extra. I'll also say right here that no two houses are the same in that regard. I'll explain later.
So we're all in agreement that there are actually more shingles on the roof than just those that cover the surface - we just haven't quantified that amount yet nor have we explored the difficulty factor in removing and disposing of them. I think we can all agree that so far, we're all close to "cool" and that concept. I'm sure even Kile, Catdaddy and Ghost are "on board" with this concept to some degree.
Now let's enter the variable that makes it apparent that the equation you are using is flawed.
Let's pretend that you discover a second roof has been "overlayed" on top of the first one. We can all agree that there would be a second layer tear off involved.
For the time being, we'll leave out the possibility that the dirty, filthy, thieving insured may have absconded with the prior claim's tear off money and bought his wife a cubic zirconium with the ill-gotten gains or that worse, the poor needy, blind insured was taken advantage of by a band of gypsy roofers who feigned a tear off and even pocketed extra dumpster money to make the insured think a real demolition was occurring.
Now, by finding that second layer and by virtue of a previous ruling by a former Sheriff of the Insurance Department in Texas, we know we are immediately obligated to remove BOTH layers of roofing. (We can allremember Big Red trying to "sell" the second layer tear off at $5 per qsquare by telling contractors, insureds and even adjusters that it was "the going rate". Of course we all know and knew then it wasn't but that's another stroy.
Pay close attention here because this is where the "Law of Large Numbers" has been lining the pockets of the carriers for years.
When does a second layer of shingles become a second roof rather than a few extra shingles? And who decides that in favor of the carrier EACH time?
Kile, said "I'm not arguing over $50 on a $3,000 roof." Well technically it's not an argument unless both sides have a chance of winning unless the argument is spousal. Kile's refusal to argue really means he won't pay - the not arguing part is to tell the roofer or policyholde that your decision is final - not just that you won't argue.
Digression is sometimes good but let's get back to the "Law of Large Numbers".
Catdaddy, I'm getting to your thoughts here, too.
Right now, on a 40 square hip roof you figure 4000 sq. feet = 40 square plus 15% "waste" (it is not actually all waste - in fact, less than 2%-2.5% is cut off and discarded onto the ground or into the trash receptacle).
That means 6 squares of EXTRA shingles is bought and mostly installed on that roof, or approximately 12.5% to 13% EXTRA is installed on that roof in the form of valley crossover materials, starter, hips, bleeder and ridges.
The thing all insurers like to use as a "catchall" phrase is WASTE which was originally referred to as cut waste and the original estimates figured ridge, valley, hips, bleeders and starters as additional to the 'cut waste'.
Now we have .13 times 40 squares actually being installed on that roof in addition to the 40 it took to cover the deck. (The math: .13 X 40 = 5.20 squares of installed roofing with about .8 of a square actually removed during the cutting to fit operation.)
If you're talking about 5.2 squares of dimensional 40 year (300 pounds per square) shingles, the weight is approximately 1,560 pounds of EXTRA shingles that must be un-nailed, scraped off, carried to a trash receptacle, hauled to a dump and unloaded - sometimes by hand.
Given the fact that another 1,560 pounds of roofing debris must torn off, be hand carried to the trash bin or trailer or dump truck on a 40 (46 squares with {I hate to even use the term since it's been bastardized} "WASTE"), how long and how much labor, fuel, equipment wear, hauling etc. would you have to "THROW IN" for there to be "no argument"?
If a Sears Die Hard battery weighs 40 pounds and has a carrying strap, it would take 39 trips to and fro over a sloped roof some 40 feet for an average distance just to put the refuse into the waiting truck alone. That's with the Sears carrying strap and not having to remove 80 or 90 nails in the 40 pound of shingles area. Plus, given the bulk of loose shingles, I doubt the average man could lift and manage to carry more than 20 pounds at a time so you might double the trips.
Now, the final factor: With roofs being equally divided between hips and gables, that fact would mean that approximately 11.75% on average of extra shingles would have to be torn off on every roof.
Again, the "Law of Large Numbers" is a useful tool in determining that the insurance industry is forcing or should we say "getting an agreed price" from contractors. That amounts to complete tear off and haul off every 10th house FREE!
My bottom line is to say that NONE of you have really made the time and material studies necessary to back your theory. I have and I've stated I'm willing to prove and have one side or the other donate the roof to a needy person other than Ghostbuster who also has to flip burger to make ends meet just as I do.
Besides the time and material studies, the math and the other provable flaws in your method, there is also the paper trail of the way it has spread from company to company and from roof type to roof type. I have clearly and carefully chronicled those changes in the collected worksheets from the past quarter century.
By the way, while I can't say for certain without checking old worksheet dates, I think GAB invented the net tear off as a sales advantage to sell their superior service (by virtue of a lower bottom line) to carriers.
Now that should answer the basic concepts of the theory to the satisfaction of most, especially if I add that phrases like "we shouldn't have to pay for what is already cut off" are now FULLY understood by each of us. You're not paying for that and are not being asked to do so. Your carriers are unjustly enriching themselves to the tune of 11+% of unpaid tear off on EVERY single roof. If they're taking it from us, I wouldn't have a problem with them adding it to you fee schedules since we don't see it, until the matter is resolved. It SURE doesn't belong to the carrier.
Final thought:
It is my opinion that certain letters sent to the state board of insurance in several states had a bearing on Allstate's decision to try to go to a net/net on/off figure. They are attempting to use a net on net off premise and say they have added o the price similar to the excuse Kile offered. However, when you mix price and units, you lose some of the accuracy needed to differentiate between hips and gables. And besides that, a very cursory examination of accumulated worksheets PROVES there is not correlating price change of the smae magnitude.
The sad thing is that there will eventually be a challenge to the method I wrote about above and also to the new Allstate method. With a decent explanation of the truthful measurements, they will lose.
Whether it will result in massive refunds or simply a cease and desist order, I don't know. But you can bet that with the thousands of roofs I've personally torn off free and with the continued reduction in roofing allowances (look at your own fees dwindle), I won't be sad.
And to those who think my only mission is to bash insurers and adjusters, it is far from the truth. As a court appointed umpire, I once awarded a lesser amount than had been previously offered BEFORE appraisal by the old Houston General when their appraiser and I agreed that the damages were not the result of a covered peril. I KNEW what caused them.
If it's right, it's right.
And to Jennifer, whose thread had somewhat been hijacked, my apologies. And my opinion? The damage is ALWAYS there but certain conditions make it easier to spot and sometimes, extra time spent on the roof can help and sometimes weather will magnify what it was almost impossible for the most experienced roof consultant to see. There have been a lot of ideas that have been put forward about ways to check for hail damage and most I agree are useful tools to help build a forensic case for determining the extent of damage or the lack thereof.
One day, after I get off from flipping burgers at the Golden Arch Diner and Roofing Emporium and after a few more touchy-feely sessions with my therapist, I will relate a few of those experiences on damage assessment.
This is as civil as I can be and I've NEVER been a good dancer but sing? I can flat do some singin"!
Regards, |
Lon |
Edited by - Lon Sterling on 10/20/2003 21:54:22 |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 21:54:23
|
A roofer with a thesaurus? Whats that. Does that help you to read blue prints, or policies?
Jennifer still has a good question.
I still believe that damage shows up better, later.
I love a nice fast & quick story. Lon would be hard to defeat in the field, or courtroom. He has lots of facts. All of my observations have been field related. What I would like to know about, is the lawsuit. They always seem to favor attorneys, and would put carriers, manufactuers, and contractors in danger. Also it would probably not benefit building owners. Although if something comes of this, you know who to refer your policy holders to.
NO WASTE FACTOR IN TEAR OFF
also, lots of structure owners, don't declare damage right away. |
|
|
|
Brooks Todd
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 22:09:50
|
Lon:
Your last post came in at the same time as mine. That is well said. How fast do you type?
Sometimes I think carriers try to wear you out, instead of paying proper claim.
Cat, dont be negative to garbage people, think of what they do for you. Why I have even given them a $100 to haul off repairs.
BLT |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 22:10:59
|
Lon, first of all, I said, I wouldn't argue over $50 on a $2500-3000 roof. I then went on to say I'd take out the checkbook and write a check for $50. I have so many claims sitting on my desk where the roofer is trying to gouge the insured that I wish I could get them all to within $50.
Secondly, I demonstrated how the figure I was paying for tear off was more than was being charged because the overlap is included in the figure that I'm using. If I use actual area and the roofer uses the same on and off method it comes out essentially the same. So I have proved in my example that my method is more than sufficient to cover the tear off of ALL the shingles on the roof. Therefore I am right and you are wrong. Get over it, you are wrong, please be man enough to admit it.
Thirdly, you said to Jennifer "the damage is always there". Does this mean that every claim we get definitely has damage and there is no need for us to look for it because an insured or a roofer would never tell an insurance company that there is damage when in fact there is not? I have another stack of files sitting on my desk that an adjuster looked at, couldn't find damage, then a roofer looked at said there was damage, then the roofer and I looked at it together and guess what? No damage.
I live this everyday, 7 days a week. I know for a fact that not every roof has hail damage. I see both kinds everyday, damaged and undamaged. So to correct you, the damage isn't ALWAYS there.
Now, let's look at it from your perspective again. Why don't we figure to tear out the nails too, why not the felt seperately too? Why not add in a little for every vent and pipe flashing? Do you want to know why? BECAUSE IT IS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE I'M PAYING. When will you get this point through your thick skull? |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 22:33:57
|
Okay, Kile has pointed out that we are required to rely on prices provided by the carriers, who rely on the estimating software companies who rely on surveys they have requested from area contractors who rely on the trainee estimator who is on his first day on the job given this non-paying task to do to keep him out of trouble. Does the trainee know what he is doing? Hey, it's his first day on the job! If he screws up on this task, who cares? Tomorrow he'll start on some real work that matters.
So, where were we? Oh yeah, who out there disagrees about the ridge row and starters being there? Catdaddy, have the Big Red pricing specialists ever researched this question for you? |
|
|
|
Lon Sterling
68 Posts |
Posted - 10/20/2003 : 23:54:13
|
Ghost, with all due respect and without incriminating yourself, how many line items are you told to skip on the estimating software because the CARRIER tells you they are "included" in the roofing price?
They NEVER prove to anyone that these line items are included and software companies continue to build software programs that can figure a building properly. The trouble lies in the carriers' wish to "include" as many items as they can get awaty with and then to hire people to estimate who have less understanding of construction than they do.
Here's a brain teaser. Especially for Todd who does commercial and any adjuster who thinks he knows the commercial market.
I did a study on new construction projects let by the Texas Highway Department and by several Independent School Districts.
For a 3 or 4 ply built up roof including metal work and insulation, the LOW WINNING bids were awarded at $5.85-$6.75 per foot or $585 - $675 per square WITHOUT access or tearoff hinderance associated with existing buildings that have yards and lanscaping.
Any of you Texas adjusters see ANY prices like that before tear off on ANY of your pricing schedules? I know you don't.
Instead commercial jobs are awarded to sub-contract "labor broker" companies who may have no workers comp insurance or may even lack general liability.
Kile, before you start talking too much about gouging, understand that these contracts are highly sought after by 10 or more bidders who may bid close to their real costs when work is slow. What does that tell you about the insurance indutry attracting fly-by-nights and adjusters who can't tell the difference in the work product?
Anybody have any Big Red price lists that go over $4 per foot?
I didn't think so.
|
Lon |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2003 : 07:56:51
|
Lon, ease back a bit more. This is the direction we are going, to determine just how is the tear off cost computed and it's extant.
Okay, kids...let's do some research into the tear off of roofing. On your mark, get set...ANALYZE! |
|
|
|
CatDaddy
USA
310 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2003 : 08:49:57
|
| I agree the ridge and starter rows are there. Lon, I would just suggest a wider snow shovel for the poor illegal immigrant that you are paying less than minimum wage to tear if off. |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 10/21/2003 : 11:30:59
|
Now, Now, Catdaddy. I know we don't pay extra for the ridge and starters, the question is why? What we are after is the research into the rationale of the tear off. The top layer is figured and so is the second layer, why are the ridge and starter ignored? This can resolve for once and forever this basic question. I believe a pricing specialist could help, so could our pals at the software estimating firms like the Big X, or DDS, or Powerclaim, or Simsol. How about the outfits like Craftsman Publishing that work up these scope items and attendant prices that we rely on?
Isn't there a breakdown in Xactimate and DDS that tries to explain how costs are derived? How about it, guys, you have sold your software, here's where you can back it up. If we can resolve it here, we can avoid explaining it to a jury. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Hail Damage Visibility
Forum Locked
