Saturday, September 06, 2008
Current Topics


Catastrophe Central
Subject: SHINGLE MATCHING
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 3123 > >>
AuthorMessages
Stan WilliamsUser is Offline

Member
Posts:1


03/05/2007 1:22 PM  

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

Jimbo McMennamyUser is Offline

Member
Posts:6


03/05/2007 5:44 PM  


it meets the test square criteria for replacement. In addition, the shingles are 20+ year old 30 year laminates.
Stan, I think that says it all.
Jimbo
Gale HawkinsUser is Offline
PowerClaim.com

Member
Posts:335


03/06/2007 12:26 AM  

 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?

brooks toddUser is Offline

Member
Posts:40


04/17/2007 9:51 PM  
Gale:
why not pay for the roof? what if they have an RCV policy?
you work for the insured also, no need to make it a guessing game, or an adversarial relation with building owner and the roofing contractor.
"Like kind & quality"
Gale HawkinsUser is Offline
PowerClaim.com

Member
Posts:335


04/18/2007 12:48 AM  

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

Ray HallUser is Offline
Adjuster
Houston, TX
Member
Posts:808


04/18/2007 1:54 PM  

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 toddUser is Offline

Member
Posts:40


04/18/2007 11:43 PM  
Ray:
it may not be in your training, but the bottom line is who ultimately pays you.
Craig HalyeUser is Offline

Fort Myers, Florida
Member
Posts:7


04/19/2007 12:28 PM  
I agree with Ray....I don't remember anywhere in my training that I was instructed that "you work for the insured also" I think that you may be confusing the instructions from the Public Adjuster course. The training I received said that as an IA, I am an extension of the insurance company working for the insurance company with the responsibility of discharging the duties of the insurance company in regards to the investigation of the claim as governed by the applicable laws and policy language in effect. They definately include never lie, cheat, misrepresent facts or act in bad faith. It is important to not forget who you work for and dont let providing excellent cutomer service to the insured confuse who you work for.
Ray HallUser is Offline
Adjuster
Houston, TX
Member
Posts:808


04/19/2007 3:23 PM  

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.

brooks toddUser is Offline

Member
Posts:40


04/19/2007 5:10 PM  
so bottom line you work for the carrier.
does that mean you short the person who pays premiums. because if you go assess damage to get an insured covered correctly, you better work for them also.
Ray, if we meet on a Hardi Shake roof that is totaled what are you going to pay, to re-install on this roof?
Hardi Shake is no longer manufactured. LKQ would definetely come into factor here. I would say Lamarite is the choice to install.
thanks for your input.
see you ion the field
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 1 of 3123 > >>




ActiveForums 3.7


Adjuster Chat Room Activity
Room:Users
The Den0



MyProfile

Introducing  "MyProfile", your space on CADO, create it, arrange it, share it! 
Click here to create your page!



Search CADO
  Google Custom Search


Home | Bulletins | Classifieds | Forums | Adjusters | Channels | Directory | Cado | Marketplace
Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use  
Copyright 1995-2007 by CatAdjuster.org Adjuster to Adjuster