Most of the roofs that I have worked, a circular type indention in the surface that is "mushy", is considered a hit. No hole through to the felt is needed. Also the gutters can be full of granuals and the carriers will not buy the roof. In addition to research of Hagg on line the above constitutes a hit in one of the carriers hail and wind guide.

perhaps this might help:


HAIL ADJUSTER DECISION FLOWCHART (copyrighted)


1) If it is an all risk policy? If yes, go to question #3 (skip question #2)
2) Was it hail?
3) Is there direct physical damage?* If no, recommend denial. If yes, go to question #4
4) What will it cost to fix correctly?


* Many adjusters are curious to know if hail hits the shingle hard enough to knock of all the granules in one spot whether that should be considered "direct physical damage". Also some adjusters question whether a roof with hundreds of small round unsighlty black spots can be considered "damaged". These are deep philosophical questions far above the pay grade of the developers of this decision flowchart. Please consult your supervisor.

I was being sarcastic on my flowchart, if anybody didn't get my sense of humor.

But seriously, if the roof looks ugly, doesn't that count as damage?

Damage can be:

1) loss of structural integrity

and/or

2) a bunch of ugliness from the hail hitting

so if an engineer says there is no loss of structural integrity, ie. the shingle still functions great, but it looks bad, wouldn't that still be damage?

I get the point that if the hail is real light it might not be damaged.

but loss of structural integrity is not the only definition of damage- - if your roof has a bunch of spots on it that can also be damage

just my two cents- maybe nobody agrees with me!

And Ray has good advice here- if it puts a dent in the siding it probably hurt the shingles too. Not to mention ALL the damage needs to be estimated.

In an effort to understand what constitutes 'damaged' composition shingles: Why do manufacturers even apply the granular coat to begin with? What purpose does that serve- color? protection? If protection, then from what?

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the black tar that you usually see in leak prone areas (the stuff you see applied incorrectly in valleys, around roof jacks, nails on top of shingles, etc.)? How long does that roof tar application last? What's the proper way to apply that stuff?

The claims process is larger than what most roof jumpers consider. The claims process ends at a courthouse. The "lifted shingle" losses with TWIA demonstrate this. The subject of a class action suit could just as easily be roof coverings that are simply "ugly" after a wide spread covered loss. The instant loss does not have to be large, just a loss and lots of the same type. The losses are denied and a plaintiff's attorney files suit and a class is certified.

The granular surface serves 2 purposes, a) to protect the mat from UV damage, b) to provide the different colors that homeowners want. Hagg had a good study on line about granular loss about a year back that showed that granular loss in itself did not contribute to the loss of function of the roof covering.

A roof with lots of ugly spots may be blistering, and is not covered as this is a function of bad manufacture or improper ventilation in the attic causing too much heat. Light hail will not damage the shingle in the way that Ray described above, so the roof is still functional, no coverage.

The roofing tar is to seal irregular areas and should be applied to a clean dry surface in a consistant coating thickness, the life of the tar is until it starts to crack providng a leak path for water. And the comment above is correct, it is usually applied incorrectly.

And yes you should review all damage. I have seen light weight hail that just sandblasted the paint off of surfaces, handled correctly this was admitted as reason for repainting. Not replacement of the shingles or the wood, or metal surfaces affected. A good look at the gutters, ac condensor, or roof vents will be the first clue if there is severe damage to the shingle. If there are dents of a large size in any of the soft metal there usually will be damage to the shingles if the are not fairly new.

The wind lift problem,which would cost about $700.00 for a 20 square roof, will not be settled until it becomes a no deductible operation, that can be paid to the homeowner with supplement for shingles that are then broken during the reseal process. The roofing companies are not going to reseal, they do not want this business, will not provide warrenty, nor want to replace at thier cost the shingles broken in the reseal process.

Just mt 2 cents

The black tar is called mastic, at least in California. It requires maintenance- it needs to be touched up every few years. If a flat roof has no wind damage, but the "penetrations" such as pipe jacks have cracked mastic, that can be a source of leaks. I always try to photograph cracked mastic.

As for warranties, I can understand why a roofer would not want to give a warranty on a repair. If a roof needs repair, it is probably 1) not new and 2) already having problems. If a roofer did a very nice quality repair for $300.00 the homeowner might be calling them 2 years later asking them to fix a different part of the roof and some interior water damage at no cost.

One of the arguments often brought up is that a repair without a warranty is not "like kind quality" compared to the other shingles that still have a warranty. Some carriers solve this problem by providing their own warranty to repairs done by the roofer. Adjusters are instructed to provide a warranty document to insureds that get a repair, or maybe just the insureds that ask for one. A very large carrier in Katrina was doing this but I don't remember all the details.

The least expensive way to handle roof claims is to be lenient in the definition of damage and to replace the roof membrane. TWIA's problems with "lifted" shingles proves that.

Deny claims with "lifted" tabs and then settle with a plaintiff's attorney for $189 million.

Chuck TWIA put out a book, thats what cooked them, but we had 50 other carriers who were singing the same old song. We need to stop this run away train, but I "thinK" the carriers will get their rate  increase "AND"  I think thats the plan. Underwriting profit "too low" when you pay billions you don,t owe it does screw up the figs.

Yeah, what Leland said! Good analysis from start to finish. Also what Chuck and Ray said. And the rest of you, too. I am the Amen corner here.

My Haag manual says...



"Functional damage to composition shingles is defined as a reduction of water shedding ability or expected service life"

It also describes hail damage as "punctures" or "bruises"

Simple enough...

Posted By WILLIS on 29 Sep 2010 07:56 PM

My two cents would be this:  If you have a widespread wind event such as tornado or hurricane or hail then do not fight the issue of replacing the roof.  Just do it.  Pay the insured a fair ACV, holdback what you can, if allowed by state law, then pay the full cost when the roof is replaced.  Use an accepted service like Eagleview to generate an accurate roof measurement coupled with Xactimate or Simsol or DDS or whatever is the current going rate.  Put the burden on the insured to stop any further interior or exterior damage.   If he fails to comply then defend with the policy condition  of failure to mitigate his damages to prevent further loss.  

 

 

I don,t think one adjuster who was trained as a property adjuster by an insurance company would ever start this slope talk and all the crap that the cat. adjuster world has heard in schools, bar stools and the internet. When a claim is reported it requires a good investigation, this can be done in a matter of time that it takes.... a 1/4 hour, day or month and it has to be done. Some people just do not know what each loss needs.

Posted By jdacree on 28 Sep 2010 11:42 PM
The granular surface serves 2 purposes, a) to protect the mat from UV damage, b) to provide the different colors that homeowners want. Hagg had a good study on line about granular loss about a year back that showed that granular loss in itself did not contribute to the loss of function of the roof covering.

Good post and I agree with the definition of the functional purpose of the granules.  However, my concern is the approach to defining the functional purpose of the roof's shingles. A roof functions when it lasts as long as the advertised warranty (20 yr, 25 yr, 30 yr, etc).

The roof functions when it has all of its granules fastened to the black mastic underlayment.  When the granules are gone, the shingles no longer function to protect the home and will succumb to cracking- usually within a 2-5 year period.  Sure, it may shed water right after the storm, but the roof itself looses its functionality when it will not last for its advertised warranty.

If light amounts of granules are lost in a generalized fashion without any black mastic showing, then the roof still functions.  This is why I can justify calling this issue as not acceptable for roof replacement.  Conversely, I can understand why others would disagree, but I'd still see this as not a qualified justification for replacement.

Hi Ryan,

I wish it were that simple.  I've applied the definition you provided for the past ten (10) years.  I've always cruised on through hail claims under that general principle.  I wished it did not have to change.

However, some carriers are wanting adjusters to get the HAAG certification.  With it, their approved adjusters will then approach hail claims based on the definition provided in my initial post.  Perhaps the definition is still the same, but its the carrier that chooses an alternative interpretation- kind of hard to do that unless you actually edit the words you provided.