| Author |
Message |
mark (Olderthendirt)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2001 - 11:32 pm: | |
If the Insurance company collects a premium for replacement cost and has an opportunity to inspect the risk, why should it be abuse of replacement cost. Also a 20 year warrantee is just that and is not the life span of the shingle, which depends on many factors. Damage to shingles from ice is very rare, but it is possible. |
Steven W. Ebner (Medulus)
| | Posted on Thursday, March 15, 2001 - 11:07 pm: | |
I saw one composition shingle roof in Detroit in early 1999 which was damaged by weight of ice and snow, but the 20 year shingle was approximately 35 years old and crumbled to the touch. I was unable to walk on the roof without damaging it at every footfall. Three feet on ice and snow turned it to powder. It was a clear abuse of the replacement cost clauses of the policy to have someone else pay for replacement of a roof that had outlived more than 150% of its useful life. On the other 120 or so composition roofs I saw on that assignment the only damage was done by people chipping ice dams off the roofs.
I found it interesting that the damage done by insureds removing their own ice dams was consistently less than that done by "professional" services that were trawling the area selling their services for anywhere from $250 to $700 to remove ice dams quickly and negligently from one roof so they could get on to the next roof and collect another fee. This damage should be paid under the liability insurance of the "professional" service or by the ice removal company itself. It is shoddy workmanship. The insureds were often able to remove ice dams without damaging even one shingle when working on their own roof.
Speaking of problems caused by contractors, when water started leaking into the interior of the home, the first instinct of many insureds was to suspect a roof leak. So they would call a roofer who would come and gladly sell them a roof replacement whether they needed it or not. Then they would file an insurance claim, having already signed a roofing contract. What fun! It would then become part of our job to explain the dynamics of ice dams and why their roof is not damaged. The standard reply of the roofers was 1) The roof must be damaged because water entered the interior or 2) The roof decking must be rotted under the shingles because it was exposed to water, so the roof must be torn off to replace the decking. The insured who is facing an out of pocket expense of several thousand dollars to fulfill a contract they signed without really understanding that they did not need a new roof is not a happy insured. The roof salesperson who has left someplace warm like Houston in the dead of winter to go try to make some easy money in the frozen northland in the dead of winter to people who do not need a new roof and who certainly should not be putting a new roof on in January can get very creative in their efforts.
I have exhausted my supply of run-on sentences, so for now, see you in Biloxi. |
Ric Vitiello (Ricvitiello)
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 11:48 pm: | |
Well said guys. I guess I can sit back and enjoy myself here at the PLRB conference. The bottom line on ice dam damage to roofing materials is that it is VERY rare and should be looked at on a case by case basis with an open mind.
Ric Vitiello
Benchmark Services Inc
Roofing Consultants
Cause & Origin Specialists
Hail Damage Assessment Trainers
http://www.benchmark-services.com |
R.D. Hood (Dave)
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 10:08 am: | |
The damage can be to the shingles ,IF, the ice/ snow slides off and takes some of the shingles with it, or pieces of the shingles.
Mostly the damages to the roof surface is caused by the removal of the ice, using hard objects to break, chip, remove the ice. A safer manner would be to employ hot water or steam for this process.
There may be hidden damage to the sheathing material, if certain materials are used,(OSB board, some plywood), and other porous material. This does not happen too often, but can and does. IT may not show up for several weeks, (months) after the weight is removed.
There are many arguments in favor of the fact that the nails may have been pulled up and are loosened, and this is the call of the carrier.
The policy contract,states that you must have "a direct physical loss to the risk by a covered peril".
ICE DAM's are NOT a covered peril, they are a condition. The insured peril is the weight of ice and snow which results in a direct physical loss to the risk.
For example an HO-2 does not cover the resultant interior damage caused by an ice dam, because the covered peril is water damage, and the ice dam is not a named peril. While the HO-3 does cover the resultant damage because it is an "all risk" policy. And this may not cover the contents , unless there is an opening cause by a covered peril. |
Chuck Deaton
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 10:03 am: | |
Composition shingles are manufactured to function in a specified temperature range. Generally speaking that temperature range roughly matches atmospheric extremes.
From personal experience, I have never seen a composition shingle that I thought was damaged by cold or by having ice or snow lay on it. |
Tom
| | Posted on Sunday, March 11, 2001 - 7:19 am: | |
Exactly what damage does ice and snow (8" to 10") for many days) do to a composition shingle, if any.
Your comments would be helpful |
|
