| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Phil
USA
4 Posts |
 Posted - 01/06/2004 : 14:15:55
|
| Can somebody tell me why we shouldn,t pay for ceiling damage(popped drywall screws) during the roofing process |
|
|
CCarr
Canada
1200 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 14:40:16
|
Can you relate 'the situation' to the wording of an insurance policy or a particular peril therein?
Although you provide little information or detail, it does appear that 'the situation' you speak of may fall outside the job parameters of the "inspect & estimate" crowd. |
 |
|
|
katadj
USA
315 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 14:59:48
|
You may have a contractor’s liability claim that could be the "cause".
The direct physical loss must be attributed to a covered peril. In this instant case the "cause" was work being done on a property by others, and there is no apparent "direct physical loss" attributable to a covered peril.
If, in fact, the roofing work being done, created the damages sustained, either by overloading the structure, (ridge stacking) of the shingles, abnormal traffic, too much weight load on the existing roof, (2-3-4- layers) in place etc., then the roofing contractor may have some liability.
|
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
USA
373 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 22:37:41
|
| More explanation needed. How would removing and replaceing shingles cause properly installed sheet rock screws/nails to "pop". How would the forces generated by reshingling be transfered to the interior wall covering? |
|
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2004 : 22:50:36
|
Actually I have had this type of problem several times in the past three years of adjusting before retirement. Each time was an older dwelling with the roof improperly loaded by the roofing company. The shingles were not "weight loaded" but were piled along the ridge on two ends of a gable roof. This caused the rafters to spread slightly which caused twisting and subsequent nail popping in ceiling sheetrock. The worst case was in 1998 during the Minneapolis storm where the roofing company ended up paying to T/O replace the ceiling in entire dwelling.
I have not seen this problem in newer homes that may have a more highly engineered roofing and/or truss system. I have however seen many newer homes with an improperly loaded roof.
|
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 13:01:44
|
Improper loading of the roof or rough placement of the bundles on the roof(dropping the bundles on smaller roofs)could result in this type of damage. I have seen crew after crew stock a roof by dropping the bundle from their hip onto the deck or worse yet from the shoulder. Depending on the roof,this sudden impact of approximately 75lbs from a height of about 4' shakes the whole house. I've fired more than one laborer for refusing to gently set the bundle down rather than throwing it down when I suspected that this could result in damage. Both the effects, and affects can be catastrophic to the interior.
Under a HO-3 policy "Exclusions Applying To Coverage A and B" Sec6 "Settling, Cracking, Shrinking, Bulging, or Expanding -- We do not pay for loss caused by the settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expanding of a building, mobile home, pavements, patios, or other outdoor structures."
The insured will undoubtedly point out that the popped screws would not had appeared had the storm not damaged the roof and subsequently requiring roof traffic. Is this, as the insured proposes, an ensuing loss? It could be argued as such; however, "We pay for an ensuing loss that results from any of the above, UNLESS the ensuing loss itself is excluded. In this case I would conclude that the loss is the result of settling from improper loading of shingles and thus is a named exclusion under the policy.
If the insured was in dispute I would report to the carrier and inform that damage was due to improper loading of roof by contractor and subrogation was an option.
That was my shot at it.
As someone use to write, "PILE ON"[:D] |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 13:10:35
|
Chuck, if you would argue that the interior damage is an ensuing loss which ensued because repairs were necessitated by a storm event, then would you also argue the same, if the weight of a heavy roofing truck delivering shingles to the risk caused damages to a below ground septic tank and septic line?
I think Dave Hood hit it on the head when he suggests there is a contractor's liability loss here. |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 13:32:41
|
The damaged incurred to the septic system would be considered "Collapse" a named Exclusion which applies to coverage A and B. "Collapes does not mean settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging, or expanding. The ensuing damage to the ceiling sheetrock was a result of the SETTLING that resulted from the weight/impact of the new shingles. I would consider the comparision of the two invalid.
Yes the contractor is liable. and I would inform the carrier of this fact prior to righting up the report. The amount of the additional loss would be the determining factor as to whether or not the carrier would choose to subrogate the cost to the contractor or just pay it and close the file. |
|
|
|
Johnd
USA
110 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 13:47:09
|
Not wanting to get "off-topic" here, but maybe JIMF could start a new thread about what do we advise insureds about while adjusting. I, for one, used to tell them about all the things that COULD happen when roofs were replaced, such as trucks breaking up their driveway, etc. I have always tried to give the insured all the help and advice possible during their time of trouble.
Their are so many different types of CATS we work every year from floods to BSD's to Tornado to Hurricane, etc. each has it's unique set of circumstances that require intelligent compassion from the adjuster when dealing with an insured.
One year when working a storm in Texas, a windstorm did major damage to our home in Arizona. I still thank the adjuster, (from Crawford) who took the time and had the compassion to help my wife with some real friendly advice. We did send a letter to Crawford and the IC telling them about the excellent service they provided.
How about it Jim? Share that wealth of experience with us and help others to be better adjusters.
JOHND |
John Durham
sui cuique fingunt fortunam |
|
|
|
pcarson
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 17:16:23
|
Hello all,
I'm new to the site, good discussions to jump into as all adjusters should not be able to resist doing. Ceiling damage from roofers being called ensuing damages? I'm 6'10" and on a good day I'm over 300lbs. I have a 36" inseam so it is easy to see I'm all torso. If I fell on a roof ( and I have plenty) the amount of weight hitting the roof from 5 feet up can be over 200lbs. I have never had an insured report sheet rock damage from me falling on the roof. The roofers in question must have not midigated further loss to the property, being good agents hired by the insured the answers sound like they need to come from a 2 party conversation between the insured and the roofer. If I was ever asked to adjust further damage due to this damage always remember " all damage has its own merits of achievment and orientation", in other words as an adjuster it must be looked at, but find out why you should not pay for it during a on site investigation, not from an arm chair....( if the carrier will pay for your re-inspect bill that is, most won't.)
Good to see so many hard workin', I mean hardly workin' of my brothers and sisters on line here. Is this the slowest year ever or what? Remember all, when staff is very busy they don't have time to pull your hair as much..relax and enjoy some R&R, you know it won't last...LS
|
|
|
|
Largesun
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 17:21:12
|
| Sorry I was logged on under someone else, pcarson. |
6'10"Jeff |
|
|
|
Tom Toll
USA
154 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 19:58:43
|
An adjuster goes out, determines hail damage to the roof, figures to replace it. Asks the insured if there is interior damage, (always best to ask this) or goes into the house and inspects, (no damage). Mr insured hires a roofer to install the roof, in doing so the crew flops a pile of shingles in a weak area, causing interior nail pops. The pops, (which I doubt could occur) would be a part of the roofers liability for not performing his contractual duties correctly. That cannot be considered ensuing damage, as it was not a part of the original peril of coverage. Covered cause of loss, HAIL. Not covered, nail pops.
Mr. roofer needs to start repairing the sheetrock. Where in the policy, any policy, does it say that the carrier is responsible for the neglegence of the roofer.
That would be akin to a painter coming in to paint a ceiling and dropping his bucket of paint on the floor. Who is responsible for that, or is that accidental discharge of paint? |
|
|
|
C Bond
32 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2004 : 22:32:30
|
I previously posted with the idea that the insured was the indivigual that was pushing the nail pops as an ensuing loss. My approach, as I have been so wisely advised from other posters was to look for coverage first then eliminate the possibily of exclusions. IF, I say again, IF the ceiling damage could be considered ensuring, it would be excluded specifically under the settling clause. This damage could also be excluded under Exclusions That Apply to Property Coverages 2b Errors omissions and defects as you pointed out Tom. Either way the "Ensuing Loss" should be denied.
Just out of curiousity, How close of a relationship must there be between the original peril and what can be considered an ensuing loss? |
|
|
|
LAW1526
USA
43 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 11:51:27
|
There are many homes built with vaulted ceilings in living rooms, family rooms, kitchen/dining rooms and master bedrooms. The ceiling drywall on a cut and stack roofs (hand built on sight) is nailed directly to the vaulted trusses and on a manufactured truss it is nailed to the bottom cord of the scissor trusses. On the scissor truss the space between the truss and the bottom cord is about 18” providing the vault follows the roof slope form the exterior wall top plate to the ridge. Under this type of construction the interior ceilings are very ridged and will move with every movement of the roof. With this type ceiling it is very common for the sheet rock nails to pop out, for the plaster on nail heads and sheet rock screws to pop out, for ceiling and wall joints to crack, and butt joints in the field to crack with above normal activity on the roof other than minor repairs.
I have had plaster pop out of nail/screw heads by just walking across a roof with a vaulted ceiling below.
Most roofing contractors who do repairs on vaulted roofs with vaulted ceilings below will inform their client of this possibility and add a disclaimer to the contract.
If the work cannot be completed with out causing additional damage would this not be covered?
|
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 15:48:59
|
Tom,
In the example of the painter dropping the paint on the floor, there would be coverage for damage sustained to the "Dwelling" under Coverage A of a standard ISO H0-3 4/91 policy..... If the paint damaged the wood floor or any part of the dwelling as defined in said policy, then the H0-3 would respond........It is not a question of negligence.....the H0-3 policy is an all risk policy on the dwelling and the parameters of coverage are established by exclusions.... |
Edited by - jlombardo on 01/08/2004 16:38:16 |
|
|
|
jlombardo
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2004 : 16:43:47
|
| Now , about the nail popping due to improper loading of the roof....where is this damage excluded under the ISO H0-3 4/91 policy???? Defective workmanship?? How about coverage under the principal of imminent collapse?? I don't have an answer, but I would be hard pressed to deny this claim under the above mentioned policy. Would like to hear from JimF and/or Clayton and/or Roy on this one... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
ceiling drywall damage during roofing process,do
Forum Locked
