I have come across Farmers manipulating the “wear and tear” clause in their policy to deny coverage for full replacements due to shingles being to brittle to perform the repair without causing further damage. They recite, “We don’t owe for repairability as this is wear and tear.”
I have contested that this is not a claim for an undamaged old roof needing replacement due to age. I am stating that this roof was undamaged and the agreement to hold this customer harmless is unfulfilled if you will only approve a repair that would cause further damage to undamaged surrounding singles.
They refuse to reconsider.
This is a relatively new strategy I have encountered as farmers approved a lot of roofs for me last year. This year it seems every adjuster is reciting this blatant misinterpretation.
Is any one else encountering this? How are you overcoming this? Public adjusters? Appraisal? Arbitration?
What has been the most successful for you?