CatAdjuster.org Forum Archives
 All Forums
 Claim Handling
 General Discussion
 Repairability Issues
 Forum Locked
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Linda

USA
127 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2002 :  20:30:02  Show Profile  Send Linda an AOL message
I realize some carriers pay for repairability, i.e., nailable surface, however, not all do. I would like some discussion on the whys and why nots. My personal opinion is that if the Insured has an endorsement for "Law and Code Enforcement", then the "nailable surface" can and probably should be covered under the endorsement. I don't have a copy of the International Building Code but if anyone does, then give us your opinion of whether or not this applies.

Catmandale

USA
67 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2002 :  21:40:46  Show Profile
Linda,

This one is a goody! Hits my hot button.

It is my opinion that a repair is only an option to replacement when it it is a viable alternative. When the shingles or shakes or carpet, for that matter, cannot be VIABLY repaired to a useful condition, replacement is warranted. At that point you can apply depreciation or betterment scenarios, but you first have to get to square one, is it repairable? The condition of the insured property at the time of loss may not allow for a successful repair...25 year old shakes...20 year old carpet..etc

Just my opinion...

Dale Strain

"When we thought that we had all the answers,
suddenly all the questions changed."
Mario Benedetti (1920); Uruguayan writer.
Go to Top of Page

CCarr

Canada
1200 Posts

Posted - 09/03/2002 :  23:02:23  Show Profile
Hi Linda, I searched for an online readable IBC but couldn't find it - just numerous sites that discuss the politics of it and others to buy it from. In the absence of direct reference to the IBC, perhaps my thoughts are irrelevant.

I may not understand the context of your question, but I'll ramble on within my understanding from the specific way you asked the question.

You note that some carriers pay and some do not for "repairability". You go on to mention your opinion that in the presence of the Ordinance and Law coverage, then the nailable surface is covered.

To me it is irrelevant if the nailable surface is repairable or requires replacement, in relation to the applicability of the O&L coverage.

I was going to ramble on with a comparative detailed example of a minor kitchen fire in a dwelling, with some of the kitchen drywall damaged beyond repair and some repairable via washing and painting. In that case - the drywall requiring replacement due to the extent of damage would have to be replaced with current code fire rated drywall, as per the specifics of the code. The same applies to a damaged product that could be repaired - this is where your IBC will spell out clearly the extent of damage and / or surrounding damage that necessitates the replacement with current code product.

I suggest the same applies for the nailable surface you mention. I have come across many older homes up here with roof losses that the nailable surface is untreated full dimensional boards. You can not get a permit up here for roof replacement over that type of original nailable surface. The code requirements, relative to pitch / snow load factors etc, dictate the type of underlay. I have seen where this has been argued otherwise - in fact by the homeowner - who believed the structural integrity was greater with his 1.25" thick boards versus 1/2" roofing plywood, and the municipal inspector attended and simply took his pocket knife and easily gouged a chunk out of a board and explained it no longer had structural integrity and just wouldn't issue a permit unless a code performing underlay was used.

Therefore, I am on the "why" side, whether undamaged, repairable or beyond repair; if the existing nailable surface does not comply with current code - it must be replaced before the roofing is nailed.

Hence, if the insured has O&L coverage, that extra cost is covered; and if the insured does not have O&L coverage and code requires the replacement of the nailable surface - regardless of any or all damage to it - that aspect would not be covered by the policy.

Well, I see now looking at my comments and your question again, that perhaps you are trying to zero in on whether a damaged but "usable" allowable current code nailable surface product is in fact okay to use / reuse by code standards. There is something in our NBC concerning the "remaining durability" of the underlay. There is only so many times or layers you can expose an underlay to the nails required. I do believe your code will address this as well.
Go to Top of Page

Newt

USA
657 Posts

Posted - 09/04/2002 :  09:43:44  Show Profile  Visit Newt's Homepage
In my uneducated opinion if you have OL coverage, and you are responiding to an OL situation of nailabe surface, you would have an inspector or at least one available, the ball would be in his court and depending on the policy you have. First find out if there is coverage, if not discuss it with the insured before you get an inspector. The insured may not want to spend the money. The insured should be informed also that you will have to document this information for future reference. No towns or cities have the same codes or should I say inspection systems, probably
not the same quality of inspectors. The inspector here was a water meter reader til the mayor promoted him.(brother in law). I would think all OL claims would be as different as snow flakes. Adherance to the codes is on the home owner, whether there is coverage depends on the carriers policy. In short, I'm guessing. I do know Texas is different, if you don't have a nailable surface,you gotta put one down and the insurer pays. Few or maybe none of the other states require this.
Go to Top of Page

Todd_Summers

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2002 :  01:06:59  Show Profile
No matter what state or city your claims are in, it has been my experience that "nailable surfaces " are handled differently by different carriers. With regard to roofing, some pay for all layers to be removed, some pay only for the top layer to be removed, some will pay only for an overlay.Some pay for new decking when wood shingles are considered the existing roof deck or some decking is water damaged, others do not.
Each carrier decides how they are going to handle claims in a certain area or after a certain event (hailstorm). Sometimes their decisions are based on cousels advice and sometimes they are not. Sometimes the counsels advice is based on case law and sometimes it is not.
Therefore, again the way to handle this is exactly how your local storm manager etc. directs you to handle them, and of course , get their reasoning so that you can attempt to explain it to the insureds.
My personal opinion is that the carrier owes to "put you back in the same shape you were in before the storm", therefore, since you had a roof before the storm, and it is necessary to remove wood shakes and install decking in order to install a new roof, or R&R water damaged decking to provide a nailable surface then it should be covered, regardless of code endorsement. Upgrading to code (fire retardant shingles etc.) is a whole other issue and would depend on the endorsements.
Bottom line is get direction from your local mgmnt which is usually provided at the storms initiation meetings. It will most likely be different at each storm.
Go to Top of Page

Newt

USA
657 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2002 :  07:55:08  Show Profile  Visit Newt's Homepage
Todd, This is a question and not intended to answer, because I do not have the experience.
Is there ever problems between the opinion of the storm manager and the OL inspector, that could cause the adjuster grief? What I fear most is situations of which we have no control getting the adjuster into trouble. In my opinion a summons is trouble ,fault or no fault.

Edited by - Newt on 09/08/2002 08:10:23
Go to Top of Page

Todd_Summers

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2002 :  13:04:14  Show Profile
Newt, first of all, I don't think that these decisions are made based on the opinion's of a storm manager. Rather they are made based on the language in the policy, local laws and trade practices and case law history and much of this is determined by upper management at the carrier level and often times under advice of their counsel. If coverage is applied correctly, it doesn't matter what the inspector says, some things are covered under the policy and some things aren't. That is not to say that a particular aspect of the project doesn't have to be completed, just that it may or may not be covered under the policy as is interpretted , if you will, by the carrier. Follow the instructions of your superiors and if you work for a good vendor they, your E&O , and the carrier should back you up all the way to court if necessary. It seems to me that the alternative is to disregard your directions and handle claims based on your own or the insureds or contractors personal opinions and interpretations of the policy...a sure recipe for unemployment.
Go to Top of Page

Newt

USA
657 Posts

Posted - 09/08/2002 :  15:15:25  Show Profile  Visit Newt's Homepage
That sounds logical to me and clears up some questions that tweaked my intrest. A lot of my questions may sound too basic, however you got to know , I am still in the dummy dungeon. Special thanks to Linda for being the instigator of this topic.
Go to Top of Page

Linda

USA
127 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2002 :  00:10:32  Show Profile  Send Linda an AOL message
Would you for the sake of remaining employed by that carrier, deny coverage for the decking (for example), knowing full well it must be brought to code, and also knowing the Insured had the L & O endorsement? I wouldn't sign my name to that letter. How would you explain coverage and exclusions to the Insured?

Most of the L & O endorsements I have seen are reimbursements. The Insured has to expend the monies then present the invoice not just a signed contract.

Has anyone had any direct experience with the L & O endorsement they would like to share?
Go to Top of Page

Todd_Summers

USA
69 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2002 :  10:55:13  Show Profile
No, Linda, I would not, if I knew full well that they had the endorsement.
My point is just that you should follow the carriers direction, rather than your own personal opinions or that of the insured or contractor.
Different carriers in different locales handle these kind of things differently.
Go to Top of Page

Straw

13 Posts

Posted - 09/10/2002 :  23:58:34  Show Profile
Linda, I would not sign that letter either. The courts will uphold the codes, your carrier knows this. There are web sites you can go to to find everthing you need to justify your decision. If there is one thing I have learned the carrier will fold to the insrd and make you the dummy when it comes to push and shove over coverage issues. Our job is to indemify the insrd and protect the carrier, restoring the dwelling to make the insrd whole. I believe that means up to code. Insrd & insurers can be difficult, you do what know what is right, after all you are the adjuster on the scene/claim.
Go to Top of Page

CCarr

Canada
1200 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2002 :  12:49:13  Show Profile
Hi Linda, while looking for something else, I can across an interesting article that has some relevance to your question.

Go to www.claimsmag.com/Issues/aug02/building.asp

I hope you find it useful.
Go to Top of Page

Linda

USA
127 Posts

Posted - 09/11/2002 :  16:42:32  Show Profile  Send Linda an AOL message
Thanks Clayton, it was informative. I hope others read it as well.
Go to Top of Page

genco

USA
18 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2002 :  13:25:52  Show Profile  Visit genco's Homepage
I have the IBC, the problem is that the local officials feel the need to "tweak" the standards. So the IBC will give you the basics but not the whole story. The easyest way is to set up an interview with the local inspector and "walk thru". They will tell you exactly what has to be done and why if the policy so merits. They will eagerly put it writing for your file. Contractors will perform this inspection and provide you with all documentaion needed. There is also limited consistency as neighborhoods have their own agenda and enforcable code guidelines relative to the neighborhood in question.
I do use the "IBC" on a regular basis and it has helped as some inspectors give you their opinion rather than the actual code. Quotation of the code works very well here as inspectors are less likely to sign there opinion. Often I am told one thing on site & when the document arrives it states another.

Genco Joe

Edited by - genco on 09/23/2002 13:31:08
Go to Top of Page

Lon Sterling

68 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2002 :  11:09:59  Show Profile
Hi Y'all,

Geeesh, I hope I spelled that right for Ghostbuster. Moved here when I was six weeks old (I have one of those bumber stickers that says "I'm Not A Native Texan But I got Here As Soon As I Could.")

Got an email about the repairability of cedar shingles and shakes and my practical knowledge versus an expert's version taught in many of their textbooks and courses.

First, I will say that I'm in GENERAL agreement with the methods listed for repair by many of the recognized experts but that I lean more to the "tin" shingle back up method. Their hacksaw method at the $5 per shingle price that hasn't changed in 15 years according to them and to people who don't have to actually perform the repairs remains comical and is like Ghost's example of brain surgery at $19.95.

Pricing aside, the repair method is fine, just tedious and IMPOSSIBLE without further trauma on an old roof. They do have a "sort of" formula that they use to determine the extent of the repairs as it relates to age but they give you no real way to determine age other than by asking the owner about the roofs chronological age. There formulas for the number of shingles to repair works ONLY after age of the roof is determined.

There is also the grade of the shingle which is misinterpreted by many including the experts. Current standards allow for 7%-10% "off grade" shingles per bundle and cheaper mills push that figure higher knowing most roofers in certain locales aren't capable of grading and don't for many good reasons. (You're 80 miles from Muleshoe, TX, and you have EXACTLY enough shingles to cover the roof with no culls and it is supposed to rain 4 inches that night.)

Besides, there are no roofers trained to actually grade shingles. (I once called a mill to task about short shingles that didn't triple cover when installed at the correct exposure and THAT'S how I found out about the 7%-10% allowable misses.) We found approximately 14% on that job and had to wait DURING A SHORTAGE for more to come in by rail on MY DOLLAR. Luckily, we found the problem early and didn't tear off as many shinmgles as had been shipped to complete the job. The tie-in had to be redone three times during the wait for shingles. Who paid for that? Moi! I lost money at no fault of our own.

Back to age and repairability. Chronological age does not equate to wear in most cases. For instance, a cedar shingle roof in Pittsburg will last longer than the same age roof in Texas because of rainfall.

"What?", you say. Texas is drier than Pennsylvania! Yes, in most parts it is BUT and it's a HUGE part of the wear equation. You see, a gentle five day rain pattern with a total 2 inches over four days or even 5 inches over five days is much gentler to the roof than a four inch rain in three hours during one of those violent Texas thunderstorms.

Areas of the country that have extremely hard storms with lot of rainfall in a short period of time will wear roofs out sooner than areas of the country where the IDENTICAL amount of rain occurs over a longer rainfall period but within the same number of years.

The reason for this phenomenon is that the softness of the shingle during the rain makes it much more susceptible to erosion during a 1.5 inch per hour rain than a .25 inch per hour rain even when the yearly totals are identical.

Experts lack knolwedge such as this: Most experienced roofers know that erosion holes are common on "new" (less than 7 year old) SHAKE roofs while their shingle counterparts lack ANY erosion holes at that age. Since shakes are bumpier, the water finds and re-uses the same "channels" to get off the roof. These channels may cause as little as 1/2 the roof to be worn significantly while the "high spots" show little wear.

Determining the chronological age is not necessary to determine repairabily but to have a baseline, that age appears in many of the experts' repair advice. That's why many honest roofers (we're not talking about the roof salesmen) confound adjusters and claims reps when they announce that a certain roof is not repairable.

Another thing that is critical. Look at the roof NO SOONER than TWO FULL dry days AFTER a rain. Shingles dry from the top down and much of the curling will still be hidden 24 hours or even 36 hours after a rain.

Now for the "Cootie Grass" as they say in East Texas. How to determine the REAL CONDITION of a roof versus the chronological age and what that condition means to repairability.

This is the method I just taught in the field to a new Farmers adjuster. Even though the management is still doing what they're doing, I still treat the adjusters and and claims reps with integrity.

Put your ladder up against the edge of the roof where you can get a good look at the bottom three or four courses of shingles. Notice how the starter shingle (The lower shingle on that first course) will be thicker than the one on top of it? That's how much wear the roof has seen. This is true and genuine weathering, not hail, wind or anything else. Also notice the space, key way or water slot between each of the upper shingles. Look there to see the wear present in the starter shingle at that point. Now look at the butt of the second course shingle. Lift that shingle only slightly and using your fingertips, feel the "drop-off" from where the upper shingle stops protecting the lower one to where the lower one is exposed to weather and rainfall.

Make a note of the thickness difference with a tape measure or by just marking a piece of paper. You can do it more accurately by comparing the thickness of the upper first course shingle to the thickness of the starter shingle.

When that thickness approaches a 1:2 ratio, the roof is GONE. That means the roof is 15 to 25 years old depending on its exposure and its geographic location.

The shorter the shingle's exposure, the longer it's lifespan. For instance, in the 1960's and 1970's when both labor and materials were cheap, it was not uncommon to see 4" and 4.5" exposures used for 18 inch shingles. there was equal wear but there was also another thickness of shingle to keep a roof from leaking at those exposures. Today's 5.5 exposure means you're stretching it to get the 15 to 25 lifespan depending on condition.

Two final tips, when a roof becomes that old, repairability is impossible and the trauma associated with the repair serves to do more damage than it does good. I once saw a repairable roof "totalled" by an inexperienced roof mechanic. The other tip: be sure to check the exposure. A four inch exposure using 18 inch shingles is 5.5/4ths MORE material AND labor (multiply by 1.375 and add for ridges hips, valleys and starter on top of that).

I still remember an "expert" trying to grade shingles in an appraisal to lower the figures. He wrongly suggested they were #2 based on his perception of "grain" and pointed to 10% of them being curled as evidence. Even number ones curl sometimes. And two, he wanted to pay $15 per square less for #2's (this was along time ago). Actually, the #2's did cost less by that per 4 bundle "square" but required more bundles and an equal amount of more labor per square to meet the coverage requirements and of course, the main thing was, they weren't #2's!

Good luck and be safe out there. Read my ladder tips if you haven't already done so.

Lon
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 Forum Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
CatAdjuster.org Forum Archives © 2000-04 CatAdjuster.org - Adjuster to Adjuster Go To Top Of Page
From CADO to you in 0.19 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000