by lgjr1952 » Fri May 28, 2010 03:34 am
I came across this roofing company that in the business of representing homeowners' who have had their insurance company to not pay on a cliam that was filed. The company will have you to sign a document, that will become a contract if they are able to convince the insurance that they should pay the cliam that was denied.
If the insurance does pay claim, the roofing company is wanting the amount paid by the insurance company to repair the roof. I have requested an estimate from them, when they provided to my insurance, but I have not received the adjustment yet.
My question is: Do you know of Roofing Companies that operate like this and if so what rights do the homeowner has
If the insurance does pay claim, the roofing company is wanting the amount paid by the insurance company to repair the roof. I have requested an estimate from them, when they provided to my insurance, but I have not received the adjustment yet.
My question is: Do you know of Roofing Companies that operate like this and if so what rights do the homeowner has
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 04:25 am Post Subject:
My first impression, which is usually correct, screams
SCAM
But to be perfectly honest, no one here could give you an opinion, legal or otherwise, unless we were actually able to read the "document that becomes a contract" if they can get the insurer to pay.
There's gotta be fees attached and a bunch of hidden "small print" stuff. Why would a company spend who knows how many hours convincing an insurance company to pay on a claim that was previously denied (correctly most likely)? It will cost them a boatload of money just to investigate the issue in the first place in terms of labor. And there's no guarantee that they will receive anything? No way. It appears as if they don't get the claim covered, you pay them nothing as there's no "contract?"
Nope...gotta be scam somehow, someway. I could keep giving you reasons, quoting policy language, asking you exactly what happened to your roof and what grounds the insurance used in denying your claim, etc.
Doesn't matter. The question was about the scam, not whether coverage applied to the roof loss in the first place.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 12:07 pm Post Subject:
I'd run FAST from a company like this....
Let me ask you a question..when they were on your roof inspecting it, did you hear a lot of hammer noise? :roll:
My bet is the claim was denied because there was no (covered) damage to the roof..it's really pretty simple (as an example) there IS hail damage or there is NOT hail damage...
RUN, and RUN fast...
Oh wait, you already signed it right? Anyway you can block out their names, and post it here? We'd be of much greater assistance if you would..also what state are you in?
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 07:18 am Post Subject:
My bet is the claim was denied because there was no (covered) damage to the roof..it's really pretty simple (as an example) there IS hail damage or there is NOT hail damage...
Oh Lori, if were only that easy. Hail/wind damage is one of the only damages to a house that may or may not be present....depending on the person looking at the damage. Fire damage...pretty easy to spot. Ground water...pretty easy to deny. Hail/wind damage....?
It sounds like the OP got in with a storm chasing company. It is common for them to have contracts signed, with no way to get out of them after the cooling off period (usually 3 days depending on the state), or unless they want to pay a flat fee to back out (sort of like a re-stocking fee).
Its not a scam. The "roofer" salesman wants to get paid for his time inspecting, measuring, writing an estimate....whatever. On larger claims, I've seen some of these companies put together "offical looking" reports with photo layouts, CAD drawings with engineer type wording. They get a hold of an adjuster that doesn't know what they are doing, sick of fighting or just lazy and pressure them into paying for a new roof. They are more or less injury attorneys with Cougar Paws on. Scam no....Is it clear to the homeowner what they are signing up for….not always. (Side Note: How come after our current President started using the word clear….everything has to be clear and everyone uses the word clear…absolutely clear, crystal clear, let me be clear……It’s sort of like when a used car salesman says “Let me be totally or completely honest”….if you preface anything with “Let me be clear or let me be honest or any form of the two….you are going to follow that with a half truth, your version of the truth or a flat out lie.)
Sorry rant over.
So you have money driven roofers and many inexperienced adjusters running all over town looking at what?............something not all of them understand.
So the OP may or may not have damage. Since it is most likely after the cooling off period and she would have had to sign a contract or they wouldn’t have completed an estimate, they will have to deal with this roofer. They’ll either get a new roof or not….maybe a repair. In any case, if anything is paid….it will be going to the roofing company to complete repairs or replacement. Because in the end, if a contract was signed…it’s still a contract.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 08:48 am Post Subject:
Its not a scam. The "roofer" salesman wants to get paid for his time inspecting, measuring, writing an estimate....whatever.
This is not a universal truth. There have been egregious abuses of "just sign this form and we'll take care of everything else" here in California and, I'm sure, elsewhere.
In the past, unsuspecting senior citizens and non-English speaking persons in poor urban neighborhoods surrounding Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and other locales have signed these "innocent" documents only to discover when the sheriff shows up to evict them that they signed a second mortgage for carpeting, roofing, driveway coating (the old used-motor-oil-mixed-with-sand stuff we once knew as the "Williams Gang" scam), solar water heaters, and more.
Why are they being evicted? Because the scammer told them there was a "special government program" that pays the full cost of the "improvements". Some tell people they know don't have a computer/Internet access, "You can check it out for yourself on the Internet."
I'll cast my vote with InsTeacher that this is probably a scam, and second his motion that, we really need to see the "document that becomes a contract" to be able to say definitively, scam or not a scam.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 07:55 pm Post Subject:
I'd see it day in and day out. The contract reads in such a way that if the insurance company denies the claim (doesn't find damage) then there is no contract to do the work....since no work is needed. If the insurance company agrees to repair a portion or replace the entire roof then the homeowner must go with that roofer or pay the fee to get out of it.
Storm chasers are in it to make big money. They can't waste their time working up estimates and getting an agreed price with an adjuster to only lose the job when the insured starts shopping around to find a cheaper price once the claim is settled.
I understand why they do it. Myself, if you don't want to give me an estimate up front and without a contract....I want nothing to do with you. During hail a CAT, I stand by my statement that these are not scams...They are a business model that make these guys a lot of money. They are sales people and their job is to get the deal closed and paperwork signed.
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:38 pm Post Subject:
Hail/wind damage is one of the only damages to a house that may or may not be present....depending on the person looking at the damage
:lol: :lol: couldn't agree more! Maybe I should've said, "It's either there or it isn't (hail damage) IF a qualified person is inspecting the roof!" I forget some times, that all carriers, and all adjusters are not the same, (old :wink: )..Das...read this part of the OP again..
roofing company that in the business of representing homeowners' who have had their insurance company to not pay on a cliam that was filed
My guess? A roofer/PA...there's a combo for ya!...If the insurance does pay claim, the roofing company is wanting the amount paid by the insurance company to repair the roof. I have requested an estimate from them, when they provided to my insurance, but I have not received the adjustment yet.
So (IMO) this roofer is saying, and in the 'business' of saying...'your HO company says no damage to your roof? call us, and we'll make sure they see damage, when they do then you agree to have us do the entire job'.....little on the shady side for me...if the HO adjuster denied the claim stating no hail/wind damage, the OP doesn't need an estimate for roof repair, she needs a couple different roofers to get on her roof and say, 'yes or no' ... if they say 'yep, there is to hail damage' then she sets up a reinspect with her adjuster and had a roofer there to point out to the (dumb/ignorant/inexperienced) adjuster, 'this is hail damage'...Now that being said, I totally 'get' this whole contract thing, 'if' and that's only 'if' this roofer went to the effort to complete an estimate and documentation, AND there is storm damage. And frankly upon re-reading it, I don't see that the OP has a complaint with the roofer, as she CLEARLY understood their process and accepted/signed it. And frankly, I'm a little confused, at why she wants to know what her rights are after explaining it very well, she clearly KNEW what she was signing.. :?
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 04:13 am Post Subject:
roofing company that in the business of representing homeowners' who have had their insurance company to not pay on a cliam that was filed
I caught that the first time I read it. I just didn't address it. Storm chasers uses these terms to make the homeowner feel like someone is fighting for them for what they are "owed". Shady....yes. Legal..maybe walking a thin line. Stomers know that the greasy wheel gets their roof considered damaged.....or at least more than the homeowner that accepts there is no damage. So I doubt that a PA is included. Stormers also know that the 2nd adjuster is usually not the same as the first adjuster at the property. Different adjuster...better chance they will get them to find damage. That's why I always was glad that the companies I did work for had me do my own reinspections.
A lot of these guys learned that if they got to the appointment 1/2 hour / 45 minutes early..set up a ladder, chalked the roof and took all the measurements and handed them to the adjuster when they showed...that many times the adjuster would just accept it as damaged to save the time an energy and to just get the claim closed.
I'm a little confused, at why she wants to know what her rights are after explaining it very well, she clearly KNEW what she was signing..
My guess...one of two things. The insurance company came back with repair only and the homeowner doesn't want to do it...or the homeowner found that they can do the roof cheaper then the estimate by another company but is stuck with this company.
The only other thing I could think of is that the homeowner is nervous after reading the contract and now fully understanding that it is a contract. After telling insured's that they had no damage, I had a few show me the contract. THey were worried that they would still have to do the roof. It always confused me that people sign things they don't understand.
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 06:32 pm Post Subject:
It always confused me that people sign things they don't understand
Excellent point. When people ask me what they can do about having gotten involved in something like this, I ask them what it was they wanted at the time they signed the contract.
Like the so-called "toxic loan crisis" that has warped the lending situation in America, the people the government has been attempting to bail out are mostly ones who (a) could not afford the home under normal circumstances and (b) either foolishly believed what they were told about "home prices always go up, so you'll be able to refinance and get a lower rate", or (c) chose to ignore what they really knew, "If the rates go up, we won't be able to afford it" . . . and they turned to their rich Uncle Sam and asked for a handout when push came to foreclosure, who said, "OK, why not?" to them, but said to the rest of us trying to be responsible, "Money for you? LOL! You're wealthy, you can afford it."
It's like reading the "terms of service" on most websites -- we just want access to the information behind Door #1, so why bother reading the fine print? It's only later -- when you discover that you gave them permission to give your email address to 1,000,000 Russians looking for a way to exploit your PC through viruses, trojan horses, or naked ladies in your email, that you wonder, "Gee, how did all these people suddenly get my email address?"
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 10:45 pm Post Subject:
My opinion is that this particular OP knew EXACTLY what she was signing, as she explained it very well...perhaps a little 'buyers remorse' now?
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 04:41 am Post Subject:
Like the so-called "toxic loan crisis"
You mean you can't afford a 250K house if you make 30K per year.
Add your comment