partial roof replacement

by Guest » Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:20 pm
Guest

My roof was damaged by hail about 6 months ago. It was not badly damagedm but definitely damaged.
My insurance company wants to replace only two slopes, saying that the entire roof was not damaged. I am having trouble understanding how this might affect me in the future, i.e., if we have another hail storm. What is general Texas law regarding roof replacement? All my neighbors who had hail damage got a whole roof!

Total Comments: 7

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2014 11:27 pm Post Subject:

I think it's usually around 2/3s when the insurance company would allow for a complete replacement. However, this is usually as it just becomes cheaper. The insurance company is only required to pay for repairs to the damaged areas.

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 01:24 pm Post Subject:

All my neighbors who had hail damage got a whole roof!

Really? And did you ask them all how much damage they each had incurred? Do you know whether any of them simply decided to pay the cost of additional labor and materials?

Your comment is a common one that usually is not accurate. Kind of like the child who says to mom and dad, "But all the other kids have an __(insert name of anything here)__."

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2014 09:29 pm Post Subject:

I don't agree with either response. It is true that just because a neighbor got a roof does not mean that you are entitled, however I would use that as a good gauge as to the extent of damages in an area.
I do not do any work in TX so I do not personally know about their building codes and how your policy may or may not apply in that situation. I would highly recommend you consult with a reputable Public Adjuster that may be able to help guide you in the right direction or potentially a reputable roofing contractor may be able help as well.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:35 am Post Subject:

I would use that as a good gauge as to the extent of damages in an area.


Let me say first, that I am not an adjuster. But common sense tells me that this statement is inaccurate. We've all seen the photos of tornado-ravaged areas, with whole blocks of buildings leveled into matchsticks . . . except for one or two dwellings with virtually no damage. To say that an unaffected property is entitled to repairs that do not need to be made based on damages to other properties in a given area is, quite simply, not how insurance companies pay claims.

Each claim is evaluated on its own merits and paid accordingly. Claim A down the street is evaluated separately from Claim B here on the corner, and each one has no bearing on the other.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 02:28 pm Post Subject:

If you would have read the response in it's entirety you would have also seen that I stated that you are not entitled just because your neighbors got new roofs. The fact that all the neighbors are getting new roofs does however tip me off that there was a significant hail event in the area.
I would not accept what the insurance company adjuster reported as fact, the policyholder most likely does not know the adjusters qualifications, experience and training in the field. I would however highly recommend that this policyholder hire a qualified representative to consult with and see if there was anything missed or possibly being handled improperly. Better safe than sorry.

Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 03:35 pm Post Subject:

you would have also seen that I stated that you are not entitled just because your neighbors got new roofs.

I did not miss this. I did not need to comment in response, because I had already stated the same thing prior to your post.

The fact that all the neighbors are getting new roofs

This is not FACT, it is ANECDOTE. Notice that the OP never returned to answer the question.

I would not accept what the insurance company adjuster reported as fact, the policyholder most likely does not know the adjusters qualifications, experience and training in the field. I would however highly recommend that this policyholder hire a qualified representative to consult with and see if there was anything missed or possibly being handled improperly. Better safe than sorry.

I don't dispute this either, except to say that hiring a Public Adjuster, who typically is paid about 10% of any recovery, will not be beneficial if the recovery is the same as the insured could have obtained on his/her own (or less than about 110% of the insurance company's "best offer"). Even at 110%, the net amount to the insured is no more than the insurer's best offer, so, truly, a Public Adjuster needs to increase the insured's recovery by 20% or more.

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:58 pm Post Subject:

If you disagree with what your Carrier has concluded, here are your three options:

Option A: See for yourself.
Climb on your roof with a stick of chalk. On each major slope, draw a 10' x 10' square. Within that square circle every circular-impact wound you can find. If you can find more than 8 significant impacts within that square, your Carrier 'should' pay for all slopes in that direction. Take a photo of all 4 and forward to the Carrier if it contradicts their decisions.

Option B: Hire a qualified roofer.
Here's the thing about hiring a roofer, especially if there was hail in your area. They're going to write an estimate for a full roof and submit it to your insurer, either way you look at it. In most cases, this will trigger a re-inspection. Ask your insurer to dispatch a different adjuster. If your roof truly should be replaced in full, it will likely be decided during the re-inspection. ----- You could ask your roofer to perform those test square, but eh, either way there's going to be a re-inspection.

Option C: If ALL ELSE FAILS, and you just can't settle for reality, hire a public adjuster. Just make sure that you don't end up losing any of your undisputed settlement by doing so.

Add your comment

Enter the characters shown in the image.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.