Ive heard different things regarding brittle shingles getting approved by the ins company… If I remember correctly, someone told me if the roof doesnt have the hail damage it needs to get replaced, but the shingles are brittle and blistered and need replacing… you can claim its non repairable or something like that… ??? honestly i cant remember what the guy said, it was prob bs anyway, but if anyone has heard anything along those lines, im all ears.
I have used that many times. Non repairable. The inability to perform proper repairs successfully without damaging other non damaged shingles from being brittle or froze sealed material. Not frozen as subzero but like a unbreakable seal.
It is difficult to pass for a complete build but if the roof has some damage even if its a little under the insurers minimum if the froze seal exists it can be passed.
Also it is not something you just call in to the insurer and say,Yo,I can not get the shingles apart.An adjusters meeting is ordered and on some occasions the adjuster and a supervisor.
They want to know for a fact that they can not be repaired before agreeing to a complete build.
We get a lot more roofs approved for wind than we do hail. When a Customer has a RCV (Replacement Cash Value) policy and you cannot repair a few damaged shingles without incurring damage to the shingles adjacent to the damaged one, the insurance company must replace the entire roof. This usually happens with older roofs where the shingles are brittle from exposure to the sun and elements. In the Southern states where you routinely see 100 degree plus temperatures throughout the summer, it is not uncommon to see shingles become quite brittle when they’re 13 years old.
This is called consequential damage and is an essential element in working insurance claims these days. It is the same reasoning that you need to be paid, at minimum, to detach and reset vents, valley metal, drip edge and to replace pipe jack boots. Insurance argues these items aren’t storm damaged therefore they aren’t going to pay anything for them as part of a roof replacement. This is clearly incorrect. You have to reset pipe jack boots when replacing a roof. If they are brittle at all, they are damaged as a consequence of replacing the roof. You can’t replace a roof without removing and resetting the vents, that is a consequence of the roof replacement.
To deny this claim and simply provide repairs would be essentially the same as considering the coverage to be ACV and would be a bad faith claim. When the insurance companies calculate premiums, obviously, the risk for roof damage claims is part of that risk analysis. No question, the roof would be one of the higher risk and more costly components of the premium. Were the insurance companies to refuse to replace the roof due to age and brittleness, when the shingles are storm damaged, would mean they should be offering a pro rated discount on the premium each year the roof ages. This is not the case, therefore, it only makes sense for them to pay for the replacement when individual shingles can no longer be repaired without causing “consequential” damages. Technically, a 25 year 3 tab roof could be 35 years old and if damaged under the coverage provided by the policy, it must be replaced.
We most often are able to prove this during the adjuster inspection by simulating a repair and showing how the adjacent shingles that must be lifted and bent back become damaged in the process. We’ve had many situations where we were asked to attempt the repairs and then provide documented evidence of consequential damage if it occurs and then subsequently get the entire roof approved for replacement. If the shingles are brittle, one or two rows above the shingle you are attempting to replace will show visible creasing.