|  | | Author | Messages | |
Larry Wright
Grand Bay (Mobile) Alabama
Posts:46
 | | 08/31/2007 6:57 PM |
| | Nick, you say you see no reason for a test square. How can you determine a damage scope without quantifying the damage. Or do you suggest counting all of the damages shinfles on a roof? I would agree there may be no reason for test squares on some roofs where the damage severity is readilly apparent as warranting replacement. But, how about the minimally or marginally damaged roofs? | |
No one is absolutely worthless, at the very least you can serve as a bad example. | |
| Nick Angelides
Posts:24
| | 08/31/2007 7:12 PM |
| | i guess i just worded that completely wrong. There is obviously a reason for a test square. I just dont think it should be the only determining factor. Im just saying an old roof with 4 hits may need total replacement while a new roof with 6 hits can be repaired. | | | |
| Martin Brewer
Hixson, TN
Posts:10
| | 09/09/2007 11:02 PM |
| Folks, it seems everyone is all over the board on this issue, specifically the logic of test squares and number of certifiable hail hits per square. I think it would be more helpful to discuss the advent and logic of test squares for the benefit of the younger roof jumpers. Prior to 1987,( at which time I worked the 2nd wave in Amarillo to correct some serious issues with the 1st wave staff adjusters not knowing how to decide when a cedar shingle roof was just repairable or warranted replacement,) we, experienced hail adjusters, could just look at a roof and tell when it required replacement. If it was repairable, then we learned that we had to quantify the damage in order for roofers to accept our decisions and also to convince the court system of how we could objectively arrive at that decision if the claim ended up in court.
Ideally, cedar shingle and shake roofing should last many more years than comp shingles out in the dry Western states resulting in more repairables than you would find in the Southeastern rainy states. Consequently, the companies learned from roofers and Haag engineers which "woods" were repairable from a unit cost standpoint and how much of a waste factor was to be added for older shingles. Thus, after getting many splinters in your fingers from flexing the shingle, you arrived at your count per square and could make your decision which way to go with the "claims adjustment" calculations. ( I personally thought that the home office people making the big decisions found a way of teaching high school graduates to handle hail claims at lesser costs just by requiring the "test square" on all roof claims including the more fragile comp shingles.) But as I got even older, I realized that the original reason for test squares was the most logical and objective way of documenting your decisions on each claim file.
The smaller the hail stone, the more difficult it is to objectively arrive at the correct decision on the amount of damage. When you find actual hail hits the size of nickels or even dimes, then the total numbers of hits are going to be even greater......you just have to look longer and harder to "see" them, circle them with chalk and then photo them up close and personal. On the small hits of those sizes, I see no need in continuing to count beyond the required number of hits per square to total out each slope. It's pointless to do so...and if you do then you are showing your inexperience. Remember (and Haag Engineering confirms) that usually, the larger the hail stone, the less the total number of hits you will have on the roof. Also, different companies have different criteria for totalling the roofs.
For those of you who don't know why you flex the wood shingle/shake, then go to your company claim supervisor and give him my e-mail address. I need some hailstorms to work!
Martin Brewer, AIC | |
Martin Brewer, AIC | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 |
| |
| |
| |
|
| | Adjuster Chat Room Activity | |
| |
| | |
|
|
| |
|