| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
genco
USA
18 Posts |
 Posted - 11/03/2002 : 10:31:37
|
Does anyone have any experiance or know of any links that discusses asbestos roofing tiles.
Large Hailstorm 7 months ago hit this particular roof 12/12 pitch over cedar shake over slats, tough roof.
Asbestos tiles are severily speckled and dinged up from impact, some tiles are broken.
To what extent would these sort of damages be considered just surface and not covered.
Everyone has a different take on this as there seems to be limited experiance regarding this. Some have suggested that surface damage will wash off, after 7 months none of the damages have washed off or blended in at all. (chicken pox)
The difficulty with these roofs are they are of sufficient age to begin with that just walking them causes tile breakage and further damages. In that many of these roofs have been in place for 30 - 50 years, these tiles are on borrowed time from the slightest of hailstorms and only sustained damages because of there age.
One side of the coin:
- Age and deterioration are not a coverable item, which caused hail damage to happen to the extent that it did.
Other Side:
- Carriers have the choice of inspection of property at policy renewal and can remove coverage for roofs such as this.
When the carrier does not inspect and original policy remains in effect via renewal, how would the age and deterioration factor be considered?
Also, a HO applies for coverage on his home. HO is told by agent that garage is not covered due to age and deterioration of other structure. Agent then does not follow thru with this exclusion on policy and charges HO a premium on the garage. Would the HO have coverage on garage as premium payments had been colected for over a year? |
Genco Joe |
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2002 : 11:03:40
|
In the first place...
Anyone that walks on an asbestos shingle roof can claim the award for being the DUMBA__ of the DAY! The evaluation of this kind of brittle roofing is best done with binoculars from the ladder. Unless you are a 35lb monkey that has been specifically trained as to where to step on the 1" x 1" spot on that shingle, you will break it.
Numero two-o.
I think you are giving us too big a mouthful with your query. Can you narrow down this issue to bite-size so it can be digested easier? |
 |
|
|
Linda
USA
127 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2002 : 11:47:26
|
| If it isn't in writing--it didn't happen. Seems no matter what the agent said to the homeowner, if they collected premiums for the garage--they insured it. An attorney would have a hayday on that denial. |
|
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2002 : 11:52:08
|
Genco, I know little about asbestos roofing tiles, but some links on the subject are noted in the bulletin section of CADO, back on 10/11 when a question was asked; and they may give you a starting point.
Remove coverage for a roof? I've heard of limiting or excluding perils of coverage, but have never heard of excluding a structural element of a covered structure; on a standard homeowners policy.
Anyway, if a policy is in force on a dwelling, the carrier has accepted the risk, based on the application information and sometimes a physical inspection to varying degrees of depth. But, the primary thing is that the carrier has accepted the inherent condition of the risk and its parts.
The story of the agent advising that a garage would not be covered for whatever reason, does occur; often times the agent is passing on the determination of the carrier. Sometimes, I don't doubt, the agent's comments are based on their own observations of the risk. However, the carrier rules (other than in the minority of cases where the agent's office has the "underwriting pen" and policy issuing authority). If the policy was issued with coverage for the garage, that was the carrier's decision. There is a possibility it was a "processing error" by an underwriter or data entry person; but in either case there is coverage - because the contract says so irrespective of some verbal suggestion otherwise.
You have raised the issue of the agent's "authority", as has been discussed in another thread, ".... owe to match". In this other thread, Todd and Sbeau4014 have explained to Wes, the agent's "non-role" in claims handled by adjusters. As has been discussed in numerous threads, the agent can be a friend or foe to an adjuster. However, one thing is clear, they have no claims authority over the carrier assigned handling adjuster. Some carriers do give the "claims pen" to agents for defined claims types and amounts, and the agent's office processes / adjusts these normally smaller losses within their defined limits; and the carrier has not assigned their own staff or hired I/A adjuster to the loss. However, when an adjuster (staff or I/A) is handling a loss following assignment from a carrier, that adjuster should never take instructions or directions regarding the claim from an agent. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2002 : 12:46:07
|
Regardless of the opinion that the age of the roof contributed to the extent of damage , as you say it was the result of the hail. I wouldn't think a denial could be made on any basis other than if it wasn't one of about sixteen covered perils. If the roof is etched or has broken shingles it will have to be repaired or replaced. It may take a lawyer to get the deed done. The insurer took on the risk and the premium, just like the garage as Linda says. They didn't exclude it and can't take it back after the policy is issued, unless there is a cancellation with cause and a refund prior to the peril.
If there is no documented proof of damage before the hail, it would be hard to convince the court that there was, if it went that far. |
|
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2002 : 18:17:06
|
Many asbestos shingles crack from hail impact. You cannot see the cracks from the surface.
One trick is to take out shingles, cover them with a dye and turn them over the next day. If the cracks are there, they will show. This has forced the replacement of many roofs in New Orleans.
It is the belief of most that post here, that "if they take the $$, they own it" ergo, the roof, the APST, and all other parts of the property, (If not specifically excluded), are covered, regardless of age or condition. |
|
|
|
Darryl
USA
36 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2002 : 09:47:55
|
My $.02, I have both personal knowledge and job related experience with this material. Let's take one questiona at a time. Just remember that although what I will tell you is the truth handling varies depending upon the carrier.
Extent of damage: The speckled tiles are not damaged if they are just speckled. It just knocked off the dirt and growths. The roofs in the New Orleans area have returned to their original dirty color. As to the "dings" due to a local engineering company that was used by a major carrier if the tile is dinged it is not damaged unless the fibers showing are loose and then it can be considered damaged as the asbestos would be friable. The tiles were not considered damaged unless the tile was broken. I did not agree with the position of the engineering company on the dinged tiles. My position was that if the surface of the tile was removed and a different layer was shown there was damage, whether or not the fibers were loose and friable. I compared it to the knocking off of a layer of paint on a house or the chipping of fiberglass on a vehicle, all of which are routinely paid for by insurance companies. After some back and forth with the carrier and the insurance commissioner's office the engineer was sent back out to the risk and said the same thing he did the first time. However, the carrier then paid for the risk without any further comment.
As for walking on these roofs, they can be walked on with limited damage using the same techniques that are used on slate roofs. As anyone that knows me knows I am not a small individual and I have done it with success.
The age and condition of the shingle have no bearing on coverage except to underwriters. Once covered we take our insured like we found them (an old theory from liability). The only time it comes into play for the property adjuster is trying to determine how many will break (whether tile, comp or any type of roof covering) while making the repairs and then applying the correct repair factor to individual shilgles/tiles.
They collected premiums and covered it, its theirs. This is not like the flood policy where you can go into reformation.
Hope this helps.
Darryl |
|
|
|
genco
USA
18 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2002 : 22:45:30
|
Ghostbuster,
Walking an asbestos roof is not a problem, as long as you step center of the overlap, slats or at least supports are located here. Big no no walking in the field of the tile.
If you know of binoculars that can measure the roof I'm all ears.
|
Genco Joe |
|
|
|
visitcostarica
Costa Rica
15 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2002 : 21:57:16
|
| Try using a inclinometer and a little geometry |
Done climbing roofs...try climbing into a hammock in Costa Rica http://www.visitcostarica.net |
|
|
|
Monty Gee
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 03:05:52
|
Genco,
Here is a testing lab you may wish to implore due specifics relating to many things. You all may find a use for it at times.
http://www.inspect-ny.com/ |
Monty Gee |
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2003 : 18:17:59
|
Generally a Disto can be used to measure a tile roof. A pair of blue blocker glasses helps.
Also the Tape Dolly can be used with success.
With most companies the 100 square foot test area per slope rule does not have to be a 10 by 10 square and the test area does not have to be any set location on the slope
I would like to hear some dicussion regarding any company obligation to remove all layers of roofing material and redeck this type of roof. |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 07:29:33
|
As I understand, Texas requires roofing to be removed down to a nailable surface.
Replace the decking if necessary in Texas.
I have no idea if there are other states that require this.
If I am not mistaken it would be at the insured's expense in most other states.
Two layers of roofing are all that are required to be removed normally.
The ISO HO3 does short change the roofing aspect of claims, which is one of the most important issues. Most of the roofing subjects are covered in individual State and carrier documents.
This leaves most trainees and apprentice adjusters out unless they have a resourse such as we have here on CADO for info.
This is only my preception of this issue, I would like to hear more. Please correct me if I am wrong. |
Edited by - Newt on 01/06/2003 07:31:54 |
|
|
|
Newt
USA
657 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 08:22:39
|
Chuck, welcome back. The past few weeks, I have been missing your input to the forum.
I hope you have been busy and nothing was wrong, anyhow glad you are back.
Your subject is one that most of us are needing to review or just plain need to learn. In my case as you know, its all up hill, unless I get it here. I dont have the claims info on roofing because I haven't been exposed to any real claims or very much material related to it. |
|
|
|
Monty Gee
USA
3 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 19:38:16
|
How can you repair asbestos. With what product?
Aint it again the law to use? THAT alone should be your point of leverage. |
Monty Gee |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Asbestos Tile Roof Evaluation
Forum Locked
