[quote=“oldtimerroofing”]Has anyone had any experience in dealings with adjusters who simply will not pay out for ridge and or hip cap shingles? I have been running into this issue more and more lately and it is very frustrating. The adjusters are stating that the hip and or ridge cap shingles are included the waste factor for the replacement of shingles.
We recently completed and obviously ordered the correct amount of material on an apartment complex but had we simply gone by the adjusters work scope we would have been short 12 sqs of material which were entirely ridge and hip cap shingles. The adjuster will not budge and pay the additional sqs citing the use of an Eagleview report for his measurements. It is funny that even Eagleview states at the bottom of the square count page that their figures do not include the necessary material needed to replace ridge, hip, starter, and valley material.
I wish Xactimate would take this into consideration and apply/force a line item for hip, ridge, valley and starter shingles to be added to every roofing claim. I know this is most likely wishful thinking but damn all these things are almost always present on the roof and should be paid for when replacing.
Xactware isn’t likely to “force” a line item for hip, ridge, valley, etc. because doing so would be frowned upon by their ultimate parent company - P&C ins companies (after ISO, Inc. and Verisk Analytics, Inc.). I’ve been wondering lately if Xactware’s relatively recent stronger stance against paying some items that were previously paid for in the past is a pre-emptive attempt to keep pricing as low as possible (below even mid level market rates) knowing that the likelyhood of having to additionally/eventually pay for RRP and OSHA costs is high.
Since Xactware was purchased by ISO, Inc. several years ago, the pressure on them to keep pricing low has increased dramatically. Still, that hasn’t changed the cost of doing ins repair work the right way. As more and more contractors become wise to how the Xact gang has been generally underpaying for years, they are becoming less inclined to buy into the myth that Xactimate is an industry standard for anyone other than the insurance industry.
With Eagleview as a working partner, why would anyone expect their estimates to necessarily be anymore accurate than Xactimates? Eagleview’s disclaimer (their figures do not include the necessary material needed to replace ridge, hip, starter, and valley material) would seem to be an attempt, at least, to place their replationship/partnership with Xactware at arms length but as several have pointed out, any under estimate by either when accepted by any contractor can be costly.
We all know what is required for a full and proper roof R&R and so does Xactware. They just don’t seem to want to pay for it even though insured’s were promised that full and proper R&R is the standard they should expect.
“wish Xactimate would take this into consideration”…enough of Xactimate already! I would sooner buy AD a new work truck than pay a penny to unecessarily purchase any Xactware product. They don’t dictate to me what real repair work costs, especially when I (and many others) know what their pricing is based on - lower than RTA market rates. Big Box home improvement store pricing on materials that are often lower quality and lower labor rates based on “surveys” of low estimates and/or “preferred” contractor pricing is not RTA which is what insured’s premiums are based upon.
ISO, Inc./Xactware, Inc. is upset with me and my estimating program because it is simple to use and easy to understand. They also know it is effective, prices properly (at RTA for any area), allows for inclusion of all line items and always adds in O&P on 100% of the claim. Every estimate I’ve ever turned in on my program has always gotten me substantially more $$$ than anything Xactimate ever offered. When the ins co writes out the checks at my prices, they are agreeing that my prices at higher than Xactimate numbers are correct. Their product costs, on average, $1,200 per year per user. Mine, on the other hand, costs nothing - ever, since I am now giving it out to any licensed contractor or related professional who asks for a copy.
Based on an Excel spread sheet, it does everything a contractor needs while forgoing all of the techno goobledygook and unnecessary CAD programs found in insurance industry preferred estimating software. One of Xactware’s reps claimed my estimating program was “identical” to theirs - it’s not. They also claimed that, under its previous name, MAXtimate, it was an infringement of their trademark. Then, without proving their claim and knowing full well that I owned the trademark, ISO, Inc. paid Network Solutions to register Maxtimate.com as one of their own domain names. Sleazy.
Why use a remodel/repair estimating program that is mandated for use by the very people whose repair estimates are below RTA values 99.99% of the time? When you do, you are shooting yourself in the foot with the insurance companies own gun. There is no requirement, legal or otherwise, that you use the same estimating program that insurance adjusters use to estimate the repair costs of any given job. Using the same estimating program as adjusters doesn’t make you appear more professional in their eyes or in the eyes of in house claims representatives and it won’t get your claims paid faster or better. You also don’t need (and don’t need to pay for) the fancy and complicated but unnecessary CAD produced diagrams included with their estimates - the adjusters and in house claim reps already have them.