by W » Thu Nov 13, 2008 09:02 pm
A tree limb landed on my roof, State Farm only wants to replace or fix part of my roof, about 1/3 of it and leave the rest alone. This would cause part of the roof to be new and the rest to be old and outdated. Anything I can do? I've had a second adjustor come out and they pulled the good cop/bad cop saying the first one gave too much and the last one only would have replaced a few shingles. Am I getting the run around? Or am I basically screwed.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:02 am Post Subject:
Nothing you can do. They only owe to repair the damage portion... not to fix the rest because it's old. You as the owner of the home are responsible for the _upkeep_ of the home.
Why would you be screwed? Your getting something better then you had before the loss. Before the loss the _whole_ roof was old. Now only 2/3 of it is old.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:42 am Post Subject:
Insurance is there to put you back to where you were before the incident. There is only part of the roof that is damaged. That is the part that will be repaired.
If you back into a pole and dented your bumper, would insurance fix the bumper or buy you a new car?
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 01:44 am Post Subject:
Anything I can do?
Nope....Am I getting the run around?
Nope....Or am I basically screwed.
Only if you chose to view it that way....which incidently is wrong..the second adjuster was probably right, and they first one likely did over pay it...AND they can change their minds....Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 03:55 am Post Subject:
Got an idea that I've seen used in these instances more than once, and there's nothing illegal, immoral or wrong with it.
Hook up with the roofer and ask him for an estimate on how much extra it would cost for the tear-off of the old shingles on the rest of the house and then to simply re-shingle the entire structure? You can probably strike a deal with the contractor...he's already at the house with his crew and equipment.
Just a thought. If you can afford the difference in price and you can negotiate a good deal with the contractor, why not? The value of the home has just improved immediately, and you've done nothing wrong.
Even though we don't like people to "profit" from an insurance claim, there's another way to look at it. Even if the contractor charges you full-bore for the additional materials and labor (which he won't if you are aggresive in your negotiations), you get a complete new roof down to the paper for pennies on the dollar. If 1/3 of the roof is going to be paid for by the insurer, replacing the whole thing, at worst, would cost you $.66 on the buck. Think of it as 33% off! Not a bad deal.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 09:07 am Post Subject:
State Farm only wants to replace or fix part of my roof, about 1/3 of it and leave the rest alone. This would cause part of the roof to be new and the rest to be old and outdated. Anything I can do?
Nothing can be done since there isn't any damage occurred to the entire roof. if you would have read the policy document carefully you may have know that the insurer isn't responsible for fixing the entire roof when only a portion of it was damaged.
Am I getting the run around? Or am I basically screwed.
IMO you're neither. You'll only receive what's due and its wrong to demand more than that. I hope you have got the answer from the other members as well. so, get your roof repaired and don't expect more than what you deserve.
Regards,
Juanita
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 06:29 pm Post Subject:
I can see a requirement of being made whole as insisting the roof from one side or view all match. If you have a north slope that can not be seen when you view the damaged south slope I can see an insurer refusing to pay for that if it isn't damaged.
Afterall a replacement policy promises to put you back to where you were prior to the loss and they obviously don't sell and install 10 year old shingles. You didn't have a mismatched roof prior to the loss.
No different than an auto insurer being required to blend an adjacent panel for a color match on a collision loss. That panel wasn't damaged was it? And as a requirement of being made whole on an acv policy the insurer pays for the colormatch.
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 07:15 pm Post Subject:
Afterall a replacement policy promises to put you back to where you were prior to the loss and they obviously don't sell and install 10 year old shingles. You didn't have a mismatched roof prior to the loss.
What your mentioning is actually a AVC policy, not replacement cost. A RCV policy almost always puts the person in a better situation then they were prior to the loss. But this does not come into play here as it was a repair.You have a good point but only if the new shingles detract from the value of the home. Making this argument for a shingled roof is going to be an uphill battle. In the matter of a year or two, the shingles are going to pretty much match. Also, would the home sell for less if all the shingles did not match? I tend to doubt it. Now if the roof was tile and the color did not match, I could see this being an easier argument. But shingles are damaged all the time and small sections or single shingles need to be replaced all the time on homes. I don't see this as lowering the value of the home.
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 04:48 pm Post Subject: Roof Repair vs Made Whole
If the insured's roof looks different after the repair than it did before the repair then they have not been made whole. The insurer owes them the difference in the value of the roof before the damage and the repaired damage since no one will give the insured the same purchase price for a house that has a mis-matched roof.
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:38 pm Post Subject:
If the insured's roof looks different after the repair than it did before the repair then they have not been made whole. The insurer owes them the difference in the value of the roof before the damage and the repaired damage since no one will give the insured the same purchase price for a house that has a mis-matched roof.
Repairing the damage, whether the color of the roof matches or not, is the only INDEMNIFICATION required under a contract of insurance. That's what makes the insured whole -- you had a solid, intact roof . . . it was damaged . . . now it's fixed (properly, of course) and you once again have a solid, intact roof. There is no other standard, not the least of which is color matching. 10 year old shingles will look different than new ones. If the property owner is THAT concerned about color matching, then the property owner can pay the cost of replacing the undamaged, older, color mismatched shingles.
There is no requirement of law that says new shingles have to match the color of old shingles, or all the old shingles have to be replaced.
since no one will give the insured the same purchase price for a house that has a mis-matched roof.
This is not the insurance company's responsibility. If the decline in value is due to poor workmanship, that's a different story.
Think of it this way. What if the roof damage was not caused by an insurable event (as in worn out shingles that did not survive the 30-year warranty period)? Whose responsibility is the repair? Who chooses how many shingles to replace? The shingle manufacturer's warranty says we will replace the "defective material with new material of like kind and quality." It does not say, in addition, "and of the exact same color." And it certainly does not promise an entire new roof simply because a few shingles "died" too soon.
Your theory is faulty.
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:51 am Post Subject: Mis-match shingles
There is a claus in your homeowners policy that deals with indirect damage. Don't let the adjuster tell you it only pertains to personal property nowhere in the policy does it say that. It would be an indirect loss sustained because of the diminished value of your property.
Add your comment