Remember the days of Minnesota and Wisconsin when the lawsuits required us to match siding and shingles?  I am working a commercial wind claim on a shopping center in Texas.  Liberty Mutual is the carrier.  Their first inclination is to repair.  However, it meets the test square criteria for replacement.  In addition, the shingles are 20+ year old 30 year laminates.  The color difference would be drastic and they are open to replacement due to matching and deterioration. 

Any suggestions or documentation would be appreciated.

Stan

 If it is ACV coverage and you take a 66% depreciation the building owner may be OK with repairs depending on his bank account depending on where it is 5 squares or 500 squares perhaps?

Butch, one would need the policy to answer your questions.

O my goodness three catastrophe adjuster who thinks replacement cost coverage means new for old to any building componant, such as a roof  membrane or a siding mismatch.

What if this clause was changed to"  Depreciation Buy Back Clause"  { if any}. If you begin thinking like this you will be on safe ground." you  work for the insured also" don,t remember this from any of my training... but I do remember not to ever lie, cheat or misrepresent any facts, or policy language.

Brooks ; I was trained by an insurance company for the first two years I was in adjusting. I was trained in auto/casualty/fire/inland marie/workers comp/fidelity, along with  basic underwriting principles. It cost the carrier several thousands $ in man hours, class, schools and OJT.

I also had the General principals of Fire & Casualty Insurance Principals, and I was never never told by any person in all the years I have been adjusting "you also work for the insured" . This is PA talk. If your thinking gets on the street and it seems it has by your own hand. You have hurt youself with this remark. 

Any thoughts on LKQ in regards to dwelling losses or your theory on new for old policy language in the contract ( which does not exist). I am being this way to help the new people who think you may be correct and I do not want them to get the wrong information.

WOW.  If "test squares" say replace,,,, then replace.  Whay even question it????  Carriers will use the test square to their advantage when denying, but will say " it is only one method of determining repair or replace when it works against them.  You do not work for the insured, that I will agree with the others on,  but "company men IA's" are very funny to me.  They are so READY !

Test squares are not the sole deciding factor for when to replace a roof.  Most IA's will agree on that.  Yet, they are a commonly used tool and do much to bring many hail claims to an effective conclusion.  If there are limited hits on a pliable asphalt roof on all slopes, then each individual damaged shingle should be able to be replaced (roof repaired).  If there are numerous hits by hail, then the roof can be replaced.  It just depends on the age of the roof, the cause of the damage, the extent of the damage, etc.

I  will not address Lamirite or Fire Free as I do not know which is the better product. The only Hardi roof I ever saw was in Ft Worth in 95 that had baseball and larger hail. None of the shingle were punctured/broken. You could see "small skuff marks" on the butt end's that kinda looked like an old wood shingle that was walked on by a light weight person . Made a big note in the file and closed without a payment recommendation.