I am in the process of replacing my roof (due to age, no issues) and my buddy suggested using insurance to cover some of the cost. How could I use insurance if there are no issues? Do people use insurance to replace their roofs entirely at end of life? How is this done?
insurance companies cover STORM damage. They dont just say "oh! you have an old roof? well, heres a new one!" there has to be obvious and apparent damage caused by wind or hail to the shingles. calling in a claim, just to see if they will come out and look at it, is also a bad idea. it leaves a mark on your record and looks bad.
that being said, if you live in an area with lots of hail storms (if you had wind damage, you would see shingles missing) you might have a roofer come out and do a free inspection to see if there is any hail hits that can often not be seen unless you know what you are looking for.
some people try to scam their insurance company by waiting as long as they can to replace their roof.
On more than one occasion we have had customers insist that the recent storm(wind) or hail did all that damage up there when really their roof is old and worn out.
1/2 the time they get away with it and insurance adjuster will find some damage and then you need a roofer to say the roof is not repairable. Meaning that if I remove these shingles to repair damaged area the adjacent shingles are so old that they won't properly seal down or will be damaged in process(which is often completely true).
If you can get those two things happening many adjusters have no choice but to allow the claim.
You should try to find a roofer in your area that has integrity and insurance experience. Given those two requirements, finding someone may be a challenge. LOL Request they do an inspection to determine if there is hail or wind damage. Wind damage doesn't necessarily have to be missing shingles. There may be many creased or damaged shingles that are no longer functional but simply haven't fallen off yet. Based on their findings, you would need to decide what to do.
I would not simply call in a claim to your insurance company hoping the Adjuster will come out and find something. That counts as a claim on your insurance record whether it is approved or not. If no damage is there, don't get the black mark on your record.
If you have some wind or hail damage filing a claim on your roof may get you a new roof. If half your roof has wind or hail you may get half a roof.
Had to laugh last Fall when listening to an adjuster explain his findings with Mr. and Mrs. Insured. "I looked you roof over really well with your roofer and have come to the realization that it's a very worn out roof (21yr old Timberlines). There is very little life left on the roof as a matter of fact. That being said I will go ahead and replace it".
Of course with a totaly shot roof finding hail damage on the roof is tough but found several hits on the gutters and static vents. I don't think he took one picture of the shingles.
I did a roof back in January and the guy had a 20 year shingle that had been on his house for 28 years..I told him he would be crazy to turn it in on his insurance.....Somehow he got the insurance company to pay for it...You never know what insurance companies will and will not pay for these days
The age of the shingle has absolutely nothing to do with the insurance replacing it, unless they have an ACV policy. The vast majority of people have a RCV policy. That pays replacement cost value for the damaged areas of the home. The Homeowners pay a high premium in order to have replacement cost value. Therefore, if the shingle is damaged by wind, hail or whatever that is covered under their policy, the Homeowner has the right to be indemnified from this loss and made whole again by their insurance.
This was told to me by a upper level insurance adjuster from one of the worse insurance companies out there a few years ago.
Ad, "How long you been doing insurance work?
Me, "A couple years"
Ad, You ever gone to a house and seen no storm damage present and the adjuster paid for it?
Ad, You ever gone to a house and seen a fair amout of storm damage present and the adjuster said no damage?
Me, "Yes, like this one?"
Ad, "There you have it, welcome to the world of insurance!"
I got the chance to do a small repair for a home owner in a multi million dollar house last Fall. When asked about the status of his 14 year old laminate roof he said he'd never had an adjuster look at it. He then went on to say he works multi milliion dollar fraud claims hired by insurance carriers. He said that years ago insurance companies were owned by insurance companies. Now most are owned by finance companies so it's all about dollars and sense. He said most insurnace company personal these days are always looking over their shoulder thinking it could be the last day of work.
My experiance is independant adjusters and staff adjusters are often different in how they scope damage. I think a lot of influence is made outside of "is there damage".
How many have gone to a roof were everybody around is getting a new roof and you see little to no damage? How many people will pass on this roof only for the storm chaser next door to make a sale?
That happens to me all the time Douger. I'll do a very thorough inspection, and if I can find any hail damage, I'll tell the HO that it is worth getting an adjuster out. But very often I'll inspect an house and it will have nothing, and I mean nothing. So of course I tell the HO this and go on my merry way. Then I'll drive by a few weeks later and they will be getting there roof replaced. I just don't feel right telling a HO to file a claim on a perfectly fine roof, because they are still going to have to pay their deductible/upgrades with my company. But there is 50% chance a roof with no damage will get bought. You have the adjusters who know what they are doing but buy EVERYTHING (usually IA) and then you will have the staff guy buy the roof just because he has absolutely no clue what he is doing. This industry is amazing!
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.
I wish he bid at $175. You're $52 a square too high sir.
For my guys to put a laminate roof on I pay $200+ a square.
Yeah $175 is too high for famous...hell I could survive if I had to in my area at $175,,,but I dont have to
Authentic I am a "chaser" and I've read the entire HAAG book. Not the small one, the BIG one. I know what I'm looking for. I'm not talking about an expert coming behind me and finding something. I'm talking about the guy who's sales pitch is "we absorb deductibles". http://pa4.acculynx.com/AccuLynx/image/image/SDC10101.JPG?id=1020004&jobId=1&imagetype=BEFORE_PICTURE&imageid=SDC10101.JPG That's what I'm talking about. "Man this is the worst hail damage I've ever seen." -Adjuster. I was honest with this customer, but he still wanted to proceed. That's his prerogative and I was glad to have his business.
I agree with you fully, but not every house in the world has hail or wind damage. I've really enjoyed reading your posts on here from the last year or so, because you have a very strong understanding of the business and I have learned quite a lot. So I'm going to take all of your condescending overtones in stride and write them off as a misunderstanding. Thanks.
KPROOFAU, I apologize if my post came across as condescending. Not my intention in the least. That's the problem with the written word, it can often come across in the wrong manner. I most often intend my post to be directed at the "in general" direction, not at someone specifically. Your post just sparked a response "in general". However, perhaps I need to be a better wordsmith in order to make my point in some cases. Believe me, I have a ton of respect for the majority of the very hard working posters here. I have learned an incredible amount about the business on the technique side and also on the business side from reading posts from you and others. I happen to believe I have at least a few things on the business side of things and try to do so with the intention of being helpful. Unfortunately, it doesn't always come across correctly.
I will confess, I am probably more on your side of things. I like having an excessively high success rate when signing a contingency and ultimately getting the claim approved. I've always felt bad, no matter how well I attempted to set expectations with the Homeowner, when the claim was denied. I feel like I somehow let the Customer down. Morally and from a business ethics side of things, I want my company to try to do the "right thing".
Some of our better people have helped me gain a different perspective on this. I'm now more inclined to say if you think it is marginal and you've set the Homeowner's expectations appropriately, sign them up. That's why the insurance companies have adjusters, it is their job to inspect and make the final decisions. As long as we've done a thorough inspection and there is some level of damage to support filing a claim, then go for it. What I can't accept or strongly disagree with are these guys that sign people up just because a storm came through the area and they never bother getting on the roof to do an inspection. They're simply hoping for a favorable judgment from a friendly adjuster.
If we walk away from a few that we felt didn't warrant a claim and someone else is able to get the roof approved, no big deal. If I spend all my time being an arm chair quarterback and second guessing our decision making and moral standards, I won't have time to focus on the important things.
C'mon fellas get real. either Northwest Indiana is totally different or they don't consider organic shingle failure storm damage where you work. Here, they DO. And it cost me more than few jobs by trying to be "ethical". Since "ethical" no longer means "ethical" anyways, count me in....it is like somebody else spending somebody else's money anyway. Kind of like Government 101
AD you have a business in Indy. Is it different there? Or have organics been out of the market for too long? (there are fewer and fewer left on roofs here) Almost none sold since 2000 or so
Gus, there are some organics left here. We have gotten some of them approved, some we didn't. It depends on a lot of variables. There were some organics that were still in reasonably decent condition and clearly damaged from hail and/or wind. There were some that were obviously just falling apart period due to the shingle itself being of bad design. Mostly we just stay away from them.
The better opportunity by far is the 4 tab shingles which have been out of production for several years.
Hearthstead? They were never to popular around here. Mostly Horizons at that time
AD, is this really the way it works in your area (Indiana, right?) ?
Here in Texas, weather-related claims do not count (are not allowed to be counted) against you for purposes of setting premiums or availability of policies (high-risk pool, cancelled coverage, etc.). I have not looked into the legislation/regulations myself; this is based on information given me by my own insurance agent.
If you put 3 baseballs through the window in 2 years, of course, that is a different story entirely, and you will likely be pooled or cancelled.
next page →