Roof Overs

Roof Overs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Public Forum] >> Roofing and Construction

Message

quarky -> Roof Overs (6/29/2006 9:47:34 AM)
What is your company's policy with a roof over with minor wind damage? Replace all the shingles or patch the damaged area as you would with one layer of shingles? The damaged area was about 4'x5' but apparently the damaged shinlges were mostly due to the roof over situation. What has been your experience?? I allowed to patch because the insurer is not responsible for maintenance issues, a roof over was done just prior to the insured buying the property 9 years ago. Now the third party admin. questioned why I did not allow for a complete new roof. Go figure. TIA, IA in FL

tiwiii -> RE: Roof Overs (6/29/2006 10:10:36 AM)
Assume comp roof with two layers? 3-tab? One area of damage only? Are you sure, any creasing in other areas? 9 year old shingle- is it repairable? Did you test several areas? Code issues?

BobH -> RE: Roof Overs (6/29/2006 10:11:53 AM)
quote: The damaged area was about 4'x5' Is this an isolated "hit" (falling branch, etc.) or a widespread effect of wind to the entire slope - with missing shingles visible in a 4' x 5' area? If the "remaining shingles" are lifted with debris under the tabs, etc, then you owe the slope. Are the seal tabs re-secured in the surrounding area, with no visible "creasing" due to being folded back by the wind? quote: roof over was done just prior to the insured buying the property 9 years ago. Can you lift the shingles without breaking them? If the area surrounding the damage fails the "pliability test" then you would document in your findings that the slope is not repairable, and needs to be replaced. We are missing some of the facts of your loss here - but as an overview: Your observations & findings are more important than other people's opinions. Be confident in communicating what you saw - you were the one looking at it.

katadj -> RE: Roof Overs (6/29/2006 5:04:08 PM)
There are but 2 options, remove all roofing, renail deck to current IBC code and re roof, as the current IBC code only allows for two (2) roofs on a building, irrespective of type. The second option is to repair the damaged area, realizing that this area will forever be in your care , custody and control as no roofer would effect such a repair and guarantee it. Therefore any additional problems that arise will be referred back to the original call. So ask the lead or storm boss to render a decision, and take the monkey off your back. If there is a way to find uplift, excessive wear and tear due to a covered peril, it is suggested, IMHO, that the roof be replaced.

PORTASATGUY -> RE: Roof Overs (6/29/2006 8:34:43 PM)
I agree with Katadj

quarky -> RE: Roof Overs (6/30/2006 9:19:07 AM)
Thanks everyone for your input, you were of great help. IA in FL

tiwiii -> RE: Roof Overs (6/30/2006 9:21:40 AM)
Come on Port, don't you have any more to add then that?

yumadj -> RE: Roof Overs (8/22/2006 4:16:52 PM)
"Excessive wear and tear due to a covered peril...replace roof" Unless I missed something....What is that? Are we talking about wear and tear due to wind elements which preceded the date of loss and providing coverage? Can someone elaborate? Thank you.

ranger -> RE: Roof Overs (8/22/2006 5:23:36 PM)
The companies I get assignments from will pay to remove the two layers and replace one layer of the damaged slope. Under the described damage situatuion, I do not know any company that will replace the entire roof due to one small area of damage.

navigator -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 9:21:02 AM)
Are you guys suggesting to ALWAYS replace the shingles on the slope where the damage occured just because it was a roofover? Most roofers I have delt with are looking to replace the entire roof and never mind only one slope suffered damage, whether it can be patched and repaired or not. So, they will not guarantee a repair job. They want to replace the whole enchilada. There is more money to be made and probably easier and less complicated to replace the whole roof instead of one slope or even the patched area. Surely the house had an home inspection done before the purchase. The risk associated to the roofover should have explained to the buyer, who is now the new owner. What do you say?

heretodaygonetomorro -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 10:39:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: navigator Are you guys suggesting to ALWAYS replace the shingles on the slope where the damage occured just because it was a roofover? Most roofers I have delt with are looking to replace the entire roof and never mind only one slope suffered damage, whether it can be patched and repaired or not. So, they will not guarantee a repair job. They want to replace the whole enchilada. There is more money to be made and probably easier and less complicated to replace the whole roof instead of one slope or even the patched area. Surely the house had an home inspection done before the purchase. The risk associated to the roofover should have explained to the buyer, who is now the new owner. What do you say? The issue of a roofer 'not guaranteeing' a repair job was explored in-depth in the thread "Warranties". WHERE in the POLICY is a 'guarantee' considered part of the loss? Did the INSURED have one prior to the loss? The POLICY is the RULEBOOK by which ALL parties have to play by. If you don't know the rulebook, you are in deep doo-doo.

Big Bob -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 1:59:21 PM)
Heretodaygone.... "The issue of a roofer 'not guaranteeing' a repair job was explored in-depth in the thread "Warranties". WHERE in the POLICY is a 'guarantee' considered part of the loss? Did the INSURED have one prior to the loss? The POLICY is the RULEBOOK by which ALL parties have to play by. If you don't know the rulebook, you are in deep doo-doo." Why do carrier network repair contrators offer 3-5 year labor warranties on the work they perform?

heretodaygonetomorro -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 2:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Big Bob Heretodaygone.... "The issue of a roofer 'not guaranteeing' a repair job was explored in-depth in the thread "Warranties". WHERE in the POLICY is a 'guarantee' considered part of the loss? Did the INSURED have one prior to the loss? The POLICY is the RULEBOOK by which ALL parties have to play by. If you don't know the rulebook, you are in deep doo-doo." Why do carrier network repair contrators offer 3-5 year labor warranties on the work they perform? Bob, Contractor's do that for the sole purpose of getting their foot in the door to become a "preferred vendor" for the carrier AND because it a contractual requirement bewteen them and the carrier. That is totally off the subject of the thread discussion. In my opinion, those programs are inherently flawed (I speak from the experience of having managed one of those for a major carrier) because the contractor's loyalty is to the carrier and not to the homeowner. Their incentive to do a good job is predicated on fear that the homeowner will complain to the carrier and the gravy train will be over. A carrier should NEVER get into the position of also being a contractor, which is basically what they have become with those programs. Now, having said that, consider this ... All Independent Adjusters and TPA's should fear the proliferation of these programs because it will spell OUR DOOM! WHY?: A fee bill paid to an IA through a TPA (and ALL expenses paid thereof) are claim COSTS that cannot be recovered through increased premium charges to the insured. Now, eliminate the IA from the equation and have a contractor go out and write the estimate and send it in for review by an inside file handler (which is basically what happens with the IA estimate.) So what if he inflates the estimate by a few thousand dollars? That LOSS AMOUNT can now be recovered from the insured in the increased amount of their future premiums. A percentage of the 'claim costs' which originally were non-recoverable as an expense (our bill and LIVELIHOOD) are now LOSS RATIOS. I return to my original question: WHERE is a 'guarantee' shown as a REQUIRED part and parcel of a repair? A guarantee is a marketing tool! Nothing more and nothing less.

Joebos -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 3:49:25 PM)
I doubt very much you would get a guarantee from a Shingle manuf. on a 2 layer roof. 2 layer for Prof roofers is a no no. easy mark for excessive wind. srip that baby down to the deck. and rebuild it properly.

lombardi65 -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 3:57:47 PM)
HTGT- Reading your post it appears that you are assuming that the repair job will be completed by one of these preferred vendors; what about the roof contractors who are local to the community and have no affilation with any carrier? I believe that was the objective of the comment put forth by the Navigator. These roofers are in it for the entire roof and anyway who in their right mind Would warranty any repair patch on a roofover.

Big Bob -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 4:41:39 PM)
The issue of how many layers is part of the country sensitive. Denver up to three.. sod house mentality. FL code allows 2, but it is such bad pactice good roofers will not install them. No Manufacturer warranty. Lucky if you get 1/2 the life. Looks like****. And works about as well. (the 1st layer keeps rotting, nails get lose, lack of heat transfer etc.) I have made area repairs to roof overs when I know that I can do the repair successfully. What good is a repair unless the person making the repair is willing to stand behind it? Would you take your car to a mechanic that wouldn't warranty his work for a reasonable amount of time? What Heretodaygonetom... advises above is very correct.. However the network contractor warranty also implies that the restoration will be performed utilizing good practice of the trade. Are there roofers out there that will advise a repair can't be done, just so they can sell a complete roof? Yes. Are there roofers that are willing to perform area repairs, but advise tie-in to old roofing is not advised as tie-in will fail in the near future or not be successful at all? Yes. A good adjuster will know when they are hearing the truth or get a second opinion when needed.

heretodaygonetomorro -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 5:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lombardi65 HTGT- Reading your post it appears that you are assuming that the repair job will be completed by one of these preferred vendors; what about the roof contractors who are local to the community and have no affilation with any carrier? I believe that was the objective of the comment put forth by the Navigator. These roofers are in it for the entire roof and anyway who in their right mind Would warranty any repair patch on a roofover. Joe, (This is you, ain't it? Did you change your log-in when you went 'Gold'?) First of all, as an adjuster, I will NEVER recommend a repair on a layover! The fact of the matter (and most adjusters would concur) is that I have usually made a determination on replacement of a roof by the time I have walked from the eave up to the ridge. The balance of the time is spent putting together sufficient proof to back that decision up in the paperwork going back to the file handler. Now, if I cannot find enough evidence to document, I back up and consider the repair but it seldom gets to that. Now, as for warranting a repair job, it comes down to how much confidence does someone have in their work product? Again, I reinterate - a warranty is a MARKETING TOOL ONLY! Adjusters should get it out of their heads that a warranty is the 'Holy Grail' of repairs/construction!

racko -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 8:48:21 PM)
Changing log-ins? Just a feeling, but... could Heretodaygonetomorro = ImbaackkImoutahere ?? Many similarities with camoflauge missing at times. Not that it matters, any & all posts good to read.

trader -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 9:52:44 PM)
This guy has smarts and moxy, hello Jim F.

heretodaygonetomorro -> RE: Roof Overs (8/24/2006 10:21:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: racko Changing log-ins? Just a feeling, but... could Heretodaygonetomorro = ImbaackkImoutahere ?? Many similarities with camoflauge missing at times. Not that it matters, any & all posts good to read. Racko, Having been a frequent observer here for some time prior to joining for the sake a contributing, it doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that the "ImbaackkImoutahere" you refer to was Kevin Hromas. My personal decision not to post my name on the registry may actually be similiar to yours since you likewise have not posted your information. It was easy to see that many of the posts Mr. Hromas made were received NOT on the content of the post but simply because it was HIM that was making the post. Perhaps we ALL should use totally anonymous 'handles' since that seems to be the only way a post might be read with an open mind and addressed on it's merits. Also, perhaps people here should be less proud of making sure everyone knows just who they are because of the certain ramifications that will come. I know for a fact that a particular long-time (and well-respected) poster here has been black-balled by a large vendor because of comments he posted here on CADO under his name about a specific carrier. The carrier sent down the directive to multiple vendors that there was no way in hell the vendor would receive claim assignments if that man was on their roster. Not just that he shouldn't work on their files but that he was even on their roster. Do you think the vendors went to bat for him? Dream on! Anyway, I will continue to post here as long as Roy allows anonymous posting. If that changes, well, who knows?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

9.570313E-02