I don't know what is like in your state but I have yet to see a roof bought that has "no" damage. I have certainly seen some bought that I thought were marginal or probably shouldn't be bought. I've also seen an equal amount denied that I thought warranted a claim.
I think this also has a lot to do with perspective. If you were driving and a hail storm hit, putting very small dings on your car throughout, do you think your auto insurance should pay to restore it to new? Even if the car was 12 years old? Well of course they should, or if the cost of restoring it is greater than the value of the car, they total it and give you that amount in payment (minus your deductible). So why do you think it is different with a house and the roof on it? Unlike the car, the premium on your house doesn't go down as it ages. Some portion of that premium you pay for your house is to cover your roof. Does that go down year to year as the roof ages? Of course it doesn't. So why should the coverage decrease as the roof ages? Answer: It shouldn't. Most people have a RCV policy and pay their premiums based on the terms of that policy. The insurance companies have some of the world's best statisticians (called Actuaries) that determine those rates based on the statistical probability of how much in premiums they bring in versus how much in claims they pay out. Guess that must work, when's the last time you saw an insurance company go bankrupt?
The real issue is that many people have figured this out and now a much, much higher percentage of roofs are paid for by insurance than they were just 10 years ago. So roofers who don't understand the insurance side of the business are finding their market shrinking day by day. So instead of learning the insurance side of the business, they bitch about illegals, storm chasers and insurance companies.
By no means am I advocating that you should compromise your integrity and business ethics by trying to sell undamaged roofs to the insurance company. However, do you think there is even one iota of possibility that your understanding of what constitutes damage and what the insurance adjusters believe constitutes damage is different? I've seen countless roofers tell Homeowners they have no hail damage when they in fact did have hail damage. I've seen them correctly tell Homeowners they don't have hail damage, and be correct, but the roof was certainly qualified for a wind damage claim. I've seen countless roofs called in for hail damage, the Adjuster show up and meet the contractor and find no hail damage at all. But a month later we work with the Homeowner to get a re-inspection and end up successfully getting the roof approved for wind damage. Yes, very strange the Adjuster didn't do that the first time. I guess they simply thought if the contractor was too stupid to understand wind damage, he wasn't going to do them any favors.
Bottom line, you can complain about circumstances and continue to watch good business pass you by. You can go out and bid against all the low bidding jagoffs like Famous and try to survive on $175 per square. Or you can take steps to do something about it and adjust to the changing market conditions.