Insurance not paying for ridge?


#21

Hello POT!!! You calling someone stupid is hilarious.


#22

An easy way around this is to show the adjuster your manufactures installation manual which recommends you purchase actual ridge shingles not cut 3 tabs. I have never seen a states Building Code that doesn’t have a line in it which says “follow manufactures recommendations” or something like that.

Same thing when paying for ventilation that is not present, if the new shingles you are putting on require ventilation you may have luck saying, this is the only way the manufacturer will warranty the shingles, which is true and nearly every insurance company requires 1 year warranty or more.


#23

[quote=“Authentic_Dad”]

Hello POT!!! You calling someone stupid is hilarious.[/quote]

I guess that makes two of us on here STUPID??? Darn pothead acid dropping hippies…

What is stupid is people who are too blind to see the total picture…

My father in law was pro USA all the way. When he got back from the Korean war his Navy ship landed on the shores of Seattle. The first people to congradule him were hippies who spit on him. He was a frogman and risked his life to get what? Spit on when he got back home? After that he never had an ounce of respect for hippies and would make that well known the rest of his life.

Is there a way to block out a user? If there were actually usefull posts I could stand looking at some… Isn’t there some liberal/communist pro obama websites that would spark more of hippies interest than a roofing forum? Correct me if I’m wrong here…


#24

[quote=“Acubis”]An easy way around this is to show the adjuster your manufactures installation manual which recommends you purchase actual ridge shingles not cut 3 tabs. I have never seen a states Building Code that doesn’t have a line in it which says “follow manufactures recommendations” or something like that.

Same thing when paying for ventilation that is not present, if the new shingles you are putting on require ventilation you may have luck saying, this is the only way the manufacturer will warranty the shingles, which is true and nearly every insurance company requires 1 year warranty or more.[/quote]

I was pondering this very thing when inspecting a (poorly-ventilated) roof this morning.

Can someone (Authentic_Dad, perhaps) confirm or refute that insurers have standard policies/requirements against buying a non-warranted roof?


#25

I work insurance and we have never replaced ridge unless we are doing repairs. There is enough money built into xactimate for the other slopes to get the ridge in there as well. This is for the Midwest region.


#26

[quote=“neville”]

[quote=“Acubis”]An easy way around this is to show the adjuster your manufactures installation manual which recommends you purchase actual ridge shingles not cut 3 tabs. I have never seen a states Building Code that doesn’t have a line in it which says “follow manufactures recommendations” or something like that.

Same thing when paying for ventilation that is not present, if the new shingles you are putting on require ventilation you may have luck saying, this is the only way the manufacturer will warranty the shingles, which is true and nearly every insurance company requires 1 year warranty or more.[/quote]

I was pondering this very thing when inspecting a (poorly-ventilated) roof this morning.

Can someone (Authentic_Dad, perhaps) confirm or refute that insurers have standard policies/requirements against buying a non-warranted roof?[/quote]

the reason why, is that they are ONLY responsible for replacing exactly what is there pre-storm damage.

if it has high def ridge cap, z-ridge, or whatever… then they must include it. but if its a 30 year shingle with cut up 3-tabs for ridge, then dont expect to get z-ridge payed for.


#27

[quote=“Agape”]

I was pondering this very thing when inspecting a (poorly-ventilated) roof this morning.

Can someone (Authentic_Dad, perhaps) confirm or refute that insurers have standard policies/requirements against buying a non-warranted roof?

the reason why, is that they are ONLY responsible for replacing exactly what is there pre-storm damage.

if it has high def ridge cap, z-ridge, or whatever… then they must include it. but if its a 30 year shingle with cut up 3-tabs for ridge, then dont expect to get z-ridge paid for.[/quote]

Of course. My question, however, was slightly tangential. What I was asking about was policies or requirements that insurers have regarding buying NON-WARRANTED roofs (e.g. insufficiently ventilated). If they will buy and insure a non-ventilated (and thus, non-warranted) roof, then there is no logical reason why they shouldn’t buy a roof using (non-warranted) seconds and overruns.

By the way, the standard of replacing exactly what is there can cause some interesting side effects. I had a customer who had OC 20-year Autumn Brown on her house. The ins. co. totalled her roof for hail damage and she wanted the same brand and color. When I pointed out that OC has discontinued their 20-year line, the adjuster immediately bumped it to 25-year (which OC does make in her color).


#28

I’m not sure about the requirement for the insurance to upgrade as necessary in order to satisfy manufacturer’s warranty policies. Sounds more like the code enforcement option where the insurance must pay to bring the repairs up to code if the policy holder has that option.


#29

Well, I guess I’ll just take the less lazy way out (which I should have done the first time, right?!) and call and ask some insurers.

I still suspect my question is not clear. I’m not talking about a requirement imposed on the insurer from outside. I’m talking about their own internal requirements. Whatever internal policy it is that would keep them from insuring a roof composed of seconds (if, indeed, such a policy exists - it might just be urban legend among roofers) ought to also keep them from insuring a roof with conditions that void the warranty.

If and when I find out, I’ll post here.


#30

[quote=“neville”]

Well, I guess I’ll just take the less lazy way out (which I should have done the first time, right?!) and call and ask some insurers.

I still suspect my question is not clear. I’m not talking about a requirement imposed on the insurer from outside. I’m talking about their own internal requirements. Whatever internal policy it is that would keep them from insuring a roof composed of seconds (if, indeed, such a policy exists - it might just be urban legend among roofers) ought to also keep them from insuring a roof with conditions that void the warranty.

If and when I find out, I’ll post here.[/quote]

What exactly are you wanting to know? I work and have worked for a top insurer for the last 3 years.


#31

[quote=“Pancho”]

I want to know this (my original question from last Friday 5/13): “Can someone …] confirm or refute that insurers have standard policies/requirements against buying a non-warranted roof?”

A roof composed of factory seconds (a supply of which we seem to have in abundance in Texas) is not warranted by the shingle manufacturer.

A roof composed of brand new, properly installed shingles, but without meeting the manufacturer’s requirement for ventilation, is not warranted by the shingle manufacturer.

If one were to ask an insurer “When you are paying for the re-roof on a policyholder’s house, do you require proper materials and installation such that the manufacturer’s warranty is not voided?”, then what would the insurer say?


#32

Authentic Dad, you must have missed this one!

Pancho, he has a letter from Xactware stating that they do not include ridge or starter replacement in the pricing for their shingle replacement line items. I think it has been posted here. I have seen a copy of it.


#33

Neville:

I’ve been on the adjusting side of things for 20+ years. Insurance companies simply insure properties for the way that they exist. Seconds or non-warrnated shingles make no difference to the insurance policy. Condition of the roof or residence before the loss makes no difference.

Wind damage is wind damage. Hail damage is hail damage.

Frankly, someone could have tin foil on their roof and the insurance company is going to pay them for tin foil. If it is a seond run shingle, technically the insurer would owe for a second run shingle … but … how many of them can tell the difference?

Once an insurance company accepts the premium from the homeowner they are obligated to provide coverage as their policy reads. They have every opportunity before insuring that property to inspect it and decide not to insure the residence. If the insurance company does not perform their due diligence, then, they live with the consequences.

Wind damage, hail damage, fire …etc … etc … are all going to be covered regardless of what may be on that roof or in that home.

Where you get into a bit a stickier situation is the question of the roof isn’t installed right or has no venting, drip edge etc.

That is what is called a defect and is excluded by the insurance policy. It does not apply under the code upgrade coverage because it was either code or “manufacturer’s recommendations” long before that roof was ever installled. If the contractor didn’t follow those recommendations or meet code, then, that is not a “Code upgrade” issue You may get some adjuster’s that don’t know or understand the difference.

Now, if after the roof was installed the code changed, then, a policyholder would have an argument for code upgrade.

Otherwise, any contractor out there could simply thow anything together in any substandard matter, shape or form and the consumer’s insurance would be responsible for it. Simply, that is not going to happen.


#34

Dew’s spot on.


#35

It is apparent that I’m doing a horrible job of getting my point, and my question[s], across.

I don’t want to know whether an insurer will pay for what is effectively an upgrade from seconds to firsts, or from non-vented to vented. I want to know whether they ever REQUIRE it, and that is completely different. I have had, as I’m sure many here have also had, customers who needed a new roof in order for their insurer to cover it on their policy. Sometimes the reason is that the old roof is too fragile and therefore too likely to get damaged in a storm. If a contractor or policyholder tried to replace 15-year-old used shingles with a different batch of 15-year-old shingles, or if their insurer told them that would be okay, because it would meet the test of “matching what existed before the loss”, nobody would be okay with that. A house with no, or woefully insufficient, ventilation, will quickly cook the shingles here in our climate, they will be brittle and will be more easily damaged by a moderate storm that would not have damaged them otherwise. The parallel between those two situations should be obvious. The difference is only a matter of degree. An insurer is certainly within their rights to say “We will meet our obligation and replace your roof, according to our obligation, but unless you can verify that you use proper materials and methods, we will rider your roof right off of your policy.”

I doubt that we are going to get anywhere with a continued discussion here, since our posts are kind of passing in the night and never connecting. I will try to get an answer to this from some insurers. If I am successful, then I will post here.


#36

jtdew, I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. All homeowner’s forms, HO-2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 cover certain basic perils, one of which is wind damage. There are also general exclusions, some of which are covered by endorsements:

-War
-Nuclear Hazard
-Earth Movement
-Neglect
-Ordinance or Law
-Flood
-Off-premises power shortages
-Intentional Acts

Defects is not an exclusion. An improperly nailed shingle will not blow off if the wind doesn’t blow. When it does, it is wind damage, plain and simple. You stated:

If the insurance company accepts the premium for an improperly installed roof then they have assumed the risk. It is not a difficult task to send someone out to a home, lift up a couple of shingles and see where the nails are placed and how many there are. If you can’t lift the shingles because they are brittle, then I would suggest not accepting the premium.

Now is it feasible to send someone out to check every policyholder’s home? Not likely. It likely wouldn’t be very profitable either as I would make a safe bet that they would find more improperly installed roofs than properly installed ones. If you are going to disqualify all the improperly installed or older roofs, then they are going to take a substantial decrease in the premiums they collect. I have been on many a roof that I wouldn’t insure if I was an insurance company. I’m sure I’m not alone in that either.

How exactly is it “not a code upgrade issue” when a contractor replacing a storm damaged roof on a home MUST follow the local building code? If that code says valley metal, ventilation or ice & water shield on the eaves, then it has to go on. It is part of the replacement cost of that roof. If the homeowner has the “ordinance or law endorsement” then it is part of the replacement cost value.

The “Ordinance or Law Endorsement” is attached to a homeowner policy to cover the additional loss that may result from any ordinance or law regarding the repair of the property. It seems to me there are a lot of insurance companies who come up with ways to “get more premium” and then turn around and “pay less claim” when the time comes to perform under their contract. Fortunately for homeowners, there are a few of us out here who are privy to that game and can help educate homeowners who are getting the shaft. Unfortunately for homeowners, there are not enough of us out here to save them from the hacks who are only too happy to shove the shaft in deeper.


#37

Spot on post dstew!

An insurance company collects premiums for x number of years for a given home. Wind damage to the roof. They then say they won’t cover the roof replacement due to improper installation. All the years they were collecting those premiums, some portion of that premium was to cover the roof due to storm damage. Should they not then refund that portion of the premiums collected on a prorated basis plus the time cost of money? Seems logical since, by their decision to not replace the roof due to improper installation, they were essentially never providing coverage for that roof. How can they legally (or ethically) charge premiums for something they weren’t providing coverage for?

The argument that it isn’t feasible to inspect all these houses holds zero water IMHO. It sure is feasible to send an Adjuster out to deny the claim. It is feasible for them to spend a $1,000 to send a Engineer out to give their “professional” opinion (bought and paid for by the insurance company). It is feasible for the Agent to solicit their business and gladly take their premiums. But somehow, a home inspection by a qualified Agent isn’t feasible??? Wouldn’t it be nice if all industries and Customers were so forgiving. So if someone is killed in an automobile accident as a result of an improperly maintained car, does the life insurance company not have to pay the death benefit?


#38

Why don’t you produce the description in Xactimate where it says this? Here, I’ll answer for you, because you can’t. There is nothing in the Xactimate description (RFG 240 +) that mentions anything about the cap being included. If you inquire with Xactimare pricing, they will respond in writing that steep, steep>, steep>> and high line items are priced with the idea that waste will be included in the + portion of that line item. Yet they continuously ignore that and use the same quantity for both. Following is the description for what is included in the RFG 240 + line item: “Includes: 3 tab composition shingles, 15 pound roofing felt, roofing nails, and installation labor.
Quality: 3 tab with a 25 year warranty, and a class A fire rating.” Perhaps its just me, I can’t find any mention of ridge cap in those words.

How about PNT? If I had a dollar for every Adjuster that tried to tell me that masking and floor covering is included in that line item, I could probably retire. However, here is exactly what is in the description for that line item: Includes: “Latex paint, painter’s putty, sandpaper, and labor. Quality: One coat. Note: Painters frequently remove switch and outlet cover plates, drop light fixtures, and move items away from walls to make painting easier. An average amount of this kind of prep work is included.” What kind of quality contractor do you think you can get to paint your ceilings and walls for $.30 per sq ft?

Unlike LMB, I don’t necessarily believe the Xactimate pricing is so awful. More often than not it is the insurance adjuster, either through incompetence or conspiracy, leaving out essential line items to properly complete the claim. It really sucks when they refuse to use their own estimating tool as intended by design.


#39

Maybe this will help (or not), but it is pertinent to the current discussion.

Insurers will not bring roofs or other damaged structures up to code, just because the code requires those upgrades.

When the insurer will bring an item up to code is if the building department writes a letter requiring that the item be brought up to code. Of course, the insurers will fight any additional expense, and opening that floodgate would be very costly.

As I recall, that is essentially spelled out in the policy itself. Also, whether the insurer will even deal with it is at least hinted at in the insurance policy itself.

To simply quote building codes of an area is insufficient to move an insurer to action, in my experience anyway. I have found building inspectors reasonably helpful, if the issue is really bad. A small issue is not probably going to get their attention.

For example, I had a roof with 1/4" decking. the code was 5/8". The building department helped with that. I stopped trying to get help on the 3/8" roofs, because they were everywhere in my main area. They wouldn’t get involved at the building departments, and the insurers would not consider helping without the building departments pushing them.

I do not think it is an issue of what the code was at the time. Who in the world would know that information?


#40

It has been my experience that is all I have to do. I had to fight with State Farm the first time but that was it. Now I just provide the code information, including the city building code. The city building code usually is adopting the International Residential Code so I provide the relevant sections of that also. You just have to get the precedence established and be firm. The adjusters I deal with on a regular basis know I have my act together so it is not an issue with them.