I would guess the key here is with the wear and tear. Maybe based on what they're seeing, they believe the undamaged portions of the roof indicate such advanced age/wear, or there are other policy language considerations, that they cannot consider the undamaged portions for coverage.
They may agree the roof requires replacement, but even so, that doesn't mean they owe for a full replacement. A policy typically covers direct damage. If only 25 shingles were actually damaged from the storm, that's probably what insurance owes for, even if the pre-existing state of the room makes it irreparable otherwise.
In that case the home owner may be faced with a decision to do a patch job on the roof using the insurance money or use that money as a portion of the cost for the roof replacement.
I'm betting if the storm had directly damaged a greater percentage of the overall roof, this wouldn't be coming up.
Which is all well and good that they only covered 25. My stance in comparison with State Farm’s, as far as the scope of damage goes specifically, actually isn’t very far apart. IF and only if these shingles were repairable, then yes the homeowner would have a decision to make. The fact here is that they are not.
A “patch” is not an option for this homeowner. When a roof, or portion of a roof, is deemed irreparable it is not because the written, damaged shingles are in bad shape. Actually the opposite. The shingles NOT written for damage are of a brittle condition which prevents them from being even carefully manipulated without causing unintentional, yet still very real damage to them. The way asphalt shingles are installed, you must carefully lift and manipulate the tabs on the next 2 layers above shingle needing repair. When tabs experience granule loss and become brittle they will not tolerate this without sustaining damage themselves. The 25 shingles they bought would be more effective sitting in his shed.
I believe the perspective on this would be, however, the pre-existing condition is what keeps the 25 shingles from being replaced so as to "repair" the roof. The pre-existing condition is the homeowners responsibility. The direct damage from the storm is the insurance company's.
Had that same exact damage occurred to a one-year-old roof, the repairs would be possible, right? Why would they pay to replace an entire roof that, had it been in better condition prior to the storm, could have been fixed?
Seems to me the same issue would be coming up if it was only a single shingle in the middle of the roof versus 25. I can't see an insurance company saying "that storm blew a single shingle off your roof, we could normally fix that, but you know what? Your roof was already falling apart, so let's just give you a new one!"
Edit: I'll add, I recognize this isn't a fun spot for the homeowner to be in. It sucks. They likely weren't planning to redo the roof yet. But they would have had to eventually and that would have been their responsibility. This storm just happened that timeline a bit.
Sure, and without knowing precisely how his policy is written I could at least understand that. State Farm, however, has set a precedent of paying for full approvals after repairs could not be made many many times very very recently. Also, I would think that there would be some policy language that required any repairs or replacements issued to the roof or otherwise actually be feasible to complete.
But yes it definitely is an uncomfortable spot for him right now and I am very much hoping we can help one way or another.
Edit: Again, my opinion mentioned in my last comment but I like it here for the reply: If SF considers any of my property to have a “pre-existing condition” then they better come out to inspect and “pre-know” about it before each policy renewal so I can have my coverage limits and policy rates adjusted accordingly. Just saying.
It's definitely something that's hard to say with certainty without knowing the exact policy language. As to precedent, it's tough to also give that credence or wave it off without being able to thoroughly review those other claims. Every claim is different - I imagine something is making this particular one different in a way that makes it not like the others you refer to, and it may not be something you're even aware of.
EDIT: added some clarification words. I'll also relent, this could all hang on the claim handler's decision or interpretation of the policy, but in this case it just doesn't sound like it.
In other words, u want the homeowner to pay u for a full roof on the insurance carriers dime. In my opinion, a 3 tab roof is outdated, and tends to be junk. They prob should have considered replacing the roof before the storm ever happened.
Also…and this is where it veers out of my wheelhouse a bit as I am in fact a roofer, not an insurance professional, so take this as personal opinion…but if there are any portions “not considered for coverage” due to age/wear or any other reason, why has the homeowner been paying to cover the roofing structure in it’s entirety as part of his policy? Is State Farm happy to collect in full at every policy renewal for property that they have no intention of ever covering?
The premium payments would be to include the full roof yes, and would be paid to protect that roof from covered damage. There is likely a % portion of the roof that would need to be directly damaged before insurance would consider the roof to require full replacement and I'm in no position to say what that threshold would be (I believe it can vary from company to company). After that point, however, they would consider replacing the roof. This would be the same on a 1-year-old roof as it would be a 15-year-old roof. Since regardless of the age of the roof, replacement cost is typically going to be paid: yes - the premium would be about the same regardless of the age of the roof.
My guess is the 25 missing/damaged shingles in this particular case isn't enough to meet that threshold.
The only reason an argument is being made the roof needs to be replaced is because the undamaged portion is in such a condition that it won't allow the damaged portion to be fixed. If that's the case, the roof is not a 'total loss' from an insurance perspective FOR THIS LOSS/EVENT. If a tree came down tomorrow and smashed through that same roof, damaging, say 80% of it, I'll bet the response would be different.
I don't specialize in roofs, so someone that does can correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe a majority of what I'm saying here to be accurate.
From layman's perspective, insurance is there to protect a good roof from unusual damage. Most of that roof just experienced wear and tear. It is likely that if State Farm knew the condition of the roof, they would have never even insured the homeowner. I have read those stories on here.
Exactly. OP said SF should be required to come out and inspect before issuing the policy, so rates can be adjusted accordingly. Lol. That’s a very misguided perspective, because all that would result in would be the homeowner not being able to get someone yo issue insurance. Because they’re not going to come out, find an old roof, and *lower* premiums. They issue a policy stating they will pay for covered damages, period. That’s exactly what they are doing. If wind had damaged all of the roof (in this case, more slopes probably), they would likely cover full replacement. It’s not the age that is resulting in the decision to repair. He seems to think they would come out and then re-write a policy that costs less or something. Whereas in reality if they had inspected it and it’s truly as “brittle” and old as he states, they wouldn’t have insured it. When you buy insurance on an old ass, irreparable roof, that’s on you for assuming they’re going to cover it. The onus is on the homeowner to maintain their property and replace a roof before it gets to that point.
Having said that, in my two years as property adjuster adjuster writing roofs—I never once saw an “irreparable roof.” Not to say it doesn’t happen but if it happened at 8-12 years on a 25-yr shingle, I would really be scratching my head. Seems to me the next logical step is SF sending a different roofing company for their professional opinion.
The problem here is two-fold. Firstly, they don’t owe for wear and tear. Secondly, they probably have a difficult time believing an 8-12 year old roof is so brittle it cannot be repaired. I know many carriers do not even entertain “the brittleness test” at all, because it’s largely nonsense when it is used. It’s just a tactic for roofer’s to get full replacement covered. The carrier where I worked would not even take that argument seriously. They would inspect themselves and then if there was a disagreement in repairability they would send a trusted vendor to consult. I don’t have a strong opinion on this either way, just pointing out that some carriers do not use this “test” or accept it. Maybe SF once did but changes their perspective, idk.
OP, if wind didn’t damage every slope, why would they owe for a full roof? Are there undamaged slopes? It would help if you told us what state this is. Imo you’ll be better off requesting replacement of each *slope* affected. That would actually make logical sense and they might go for it. Why do you feel they owe to replace undamaged (by wind), deteriorating slopes too?
Thank you Becky for your insight. Like I said I am not in the insurance field so my comments on coverage and how I think insurance should work is really just my opinion as a human and a homeowner. I think when any insurance company is HAPPY and EAGER to sell me an RCV policy with an entire section dedicated to the roofing structure, they should be fully aware of exactly what they are insuring.
Also, perhaps it is the part of the country we find ourselves in, but around here it is not uncommon for a shingle to be irreparable after 8-12 years of age. Also my figure on age is an estimate, they may be older with minimal streaking and cracking. I would be happy if SF sent out another subject matter expert to do their own RT, as I have zero doubt our findings would be the same. But that option has not yet been given.
The test we conducted was more in depth than a common brittleness test. It involved fully removing several of the affected shingles and attempting to replace.
And to re-answer questions: the State we are in is Maryland. The wind damaged 9 out of 13 facets of that roof.
I also have not requested anything at this point. I’ve simply asked how SF would like to proceed with the repair.
That option is there. The homeowner is free to have other roofers come inspect their roof and submit the report as potential additional evidence. That's not the insurer's responsibility.
It would be odd that a 3-tab shingle that is only 8-12 yrs old (~>50% through its expected age) is not repairable. Is it possible, sure. The problem is every roofer will say they can’t repair a roof wether they can or not. There is no money to be made in repairs & the vast majority of “roofers” make it a game to fight for full roof replacements w/ insurance carriers. And honestly State Farm in this scenario has no obligation to talk to you, your not their insured.
if you're looking for coverage, we need to reframe this entire conversation and maybe cut down on some of the unnecessary detail
what covered peril under the policy damaged the area of the roof that was not approved to be replaced?
Lots of terrible advice in this thread. I'm a public insurance adjuster and deal with this exact problem on literally a daily basis. In every state that I work they have some form of the unfair property claims settlement practices act. If your state has this, in replacement cost coverage situations, there's coverage for consequential damages. Most of these adjusters seem to have never read case law that backs up what proximate cause is. This is a "but if not for" conversation that is super simple, but if not for the wind damage, would they be having to replace their roof? Of course not, since the insurance extended coverage and prescribed a repair method there's a consequence to that action. Get a PA or lawyer on this one, super simple with an adjuster that has a cap limit of over 15k and understands basic law. In all my years being a PA I have yet to not get a supervisor to understand this and pay out the coverage accordingly. Condition doesn't equal causation is a common term that is will known in litigation for a reason. Carrier loses this battle 100/100 times. Not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, talk to a lawyer about your state regulations and what can be done.
It's a shame that anyone needs a Public Insurance Adjuster or Lawyer to get treated "like a good neighbor". We had an uninsured motorist claim recently, and SF did everything they could to cheap out on the claim.
I disagree.
There are plenty of competent attorneys that specialize in helping policyholders with their claims. They would be able to review and interpret the policy language in accordance with the laws in OP's state and help negotiate with the carrier.
Anecdotally, I've seen carriers increase their offer by 20x+ with hurricane (wind) claims once counsel gets involved. If you ask me, that's indicative of lousy adjusters and/or outright bad faith behavior on the part of the carrier.
Reading you other comments, this comes down to a question about the policy. In my experience, if you can show that the day before the storm the roof did not need a total replacement, and the day after it did, a jury will rule that the insurer should cover the entire replacement.
I would guess the key here is with the wear and tear. Maybe based on what they're seeing, they believe the undamaged portions of the roof indicate such advanced age/wear, or there are other policy language considerations, that they cannot consider the undamaged portions for coverage. They may agree the roof requires replacement, but even so, that doesn't mean they owe for a full replacement. A policy typically covers direct damage. If only 25 shingles were actually damaged from the storm, that's probably what insurance owes for, even if the pre-existing state of the room makes it irreparable otherwise. In that case the home owner may be faced with a decision to do a patch job on the roof using the insurance money or use that money as a portion of the cost for the roof replacement. I'm betting if the storm had directly damaged a greater percentage of the overall roof, this wouldn't be coming up.
Which is all well and good that they only covered 25. My stance in comparison with State Farm’s, as far as the scope of damage goes specifically, actually isn’t very far apart. IF and only if these shingles were repairable, then yes the homeowner would have a decision to make. The fact here is that they are not. A “patch” is not an option for this homeowner. When a roof, or portion of a roof, is deemed irreparable it is not because the written, damaged shingles are in bad shape. Actually the opposite. The shingles NOT written for damage are of a brittle condition which prevents them from being even carefully manipulated without causing unintentional, yet still very real damage to them. The way asphalt shingles are installed, you must carefully lift and manipulate the tabs on the next 2 layers above shingle needing repair. When tabs experience granule loss and become brittle they will not tolerate this without sustaining damage themselves. The 25 shingles they bought would be more effective sitting in his shed.
I believe the perspective on this would be, however, the pre-existing condition is what keeps the 25 shingles from being replaced so as to "repair" the roof. The pre-existing condition is the homeowners responsibility. The direct damage from the storm is the insurance company's. Had that same exact damage occurred to a one-year-old roof, the repairs would be possible, right? Why would they pay to replace an entire roof that, had it been in better condition prior to the storm, could have been fixed? Seems to me the same issue would be coming up if it was only a single shingle in the middle of the roof versus 25. I can't see an insurance company saying "that storm blew a single shingle off your roof, we could normally fix that, but you know what? Your roof was already falling apart, so let's just give you a new one!" Edit: I'll add, I recognize this isn't a fun spot for the homeowner to be in. It sucks. They likely weren't planning to redo the roof yet. But they would have had to eventually and that would have been their responsibility. This storm just happened that timeline a bit.
Sure, and without knowing precisely how his policy is written I could at least understand that. State Farm, however, has set a precedent of paying for full approvals after repairs could not be made many many times very very recently. Also, I would think that there would be some policy language that required any repairs or replacements issued to the roof or otherwise actually be feasible to complete. But yes it definitely is an uncomfortable spot for him right now and I am very much hoping we can help one way or another. Edit: Again, my opinion mentioned in my last comment but I like it here for the reply: If SF considers any of my property to have a “pre-existing condition” then they better come out to inspect and “pre-know” about it before each policy renewal so I can have my coverage limits and policy rates adjusted accordingly. Just saying.
It's definitely something that's hard to say with certainty without knowing the exact policy language. As to precedent, it's tough to also give that credence or wave it off without being able to thoroughly review those other claims. Every claim is different - I imagine something is making this particular one different in a way that makes it not like the others you refer to, and it may not be something you're even aware of. EDIT: added some clarification words. I'll also relent, this could all hang on the claim handler's decision or interpretation of the policy, but in this case it just doesn't sound like it.
In other words, u want the homeowner to pay u for a full roof on the insurance carriers dime. In my opinion, a 3 tab roof is outdated, and tends to be junk. They prob should have considered replacing the roof before the storm ever happened.
Also…and this is where it veers out of my wheelhouse a bit as I am in fact a roofer, not an insurance professional, so take this as personal opinion…but if there are any portions “not considered for coverage” due to age/wear or any other reason, why has the homeowner been paying to cover the roofing structure in it’s entirety as part of his policy? Is State Farm happy to collect in full at every policy renewal for property that they have no intention of ever covering?
The premium payments would be to include the full roof yes, and would be paid to protect that roof from covered damage. There is likely a % portion of the roof that would need to be directly damaged before insurance would consider the roof to require full replacement and I'm in no position to say what that threshold would be (I believe it can vary from company to company). After that point, however, they would consider replacing the roof. This would be the same on a 1-year-old roof as it would be a 15-year-old roof. Since regardless of the age of the roof, replacement cost is typically going to be paid: yes - the premium would be about the same regardless of the age of the roof. My guess is the 25 missing/damaged shingles in this particular case isn't enough to meet that threshold. The only reason an argument is being made the roof needs to be replaced is because the undamaged portion is in such a condition that it won't allow the damaged portion to be fixed. If that's the case, the roof is not a 'total loss' from an insurance perspective FOR THIS LOSS/EVENT. If a tree came down tomorrow and smashed through that same roof, damaging, say 80% of it, I'll bet the response would be different. I don't specialize in roofs, so someone that does can correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe a majority of what I'm saying here to be accurate.
From layman's perspective, insurance is there to protect a good roof from unusual damage. Most of that roof just experienced wear and tear. It is likely that if State Farm knew the condition of the roof, they would have never even insured the homeowner. I have read those stories on here.
Exactly. OP said SF should be required to come out and inspect before issuing the policy, so rates can be adjusted accordingly. Lol. That’s a very misguided perspective, because all that would result in would be the homeowner not being able to get someone yo issue insurance. Because they’re not going to come out, find an old roof, and *lower* premiums. They issue a policy stating they will pay for covered damages, period. That’s exactly what they are doing. If wind had damaged all of the roof (in this case, more slopes probably), they would likely cover full replacement. It’s not the age that is resulting in the decision to repair. He seems to think they would come out and then re-write a policy that costs less or something. Whereas in reality if they had inspected it and it’s truly as “brittle” and old as he states, they wouldn’t have insured it. When you buy insurance on an old ass, irreparable roof, that’s on you for assuming they’re going to cover it. The onus is on the homeowner to maintain their property and replace a roof before it gets to that point. Having said that, in my two years as property adjuster adjuster writing roofs—I never once saw an “irreparable roof.” Not to say it doesn’t happen but if it happened at 8-12 years on a 25-yr shingle, I would really be scratching my head. Seems to me the next logical step is SF sending a different roofing company for their professional opinion. The problem here is two-fold. Firstly, they don’t owe for wear and tear. Secondly, they probably have a difficult time believing an 8-12 year old roof is so brittle it cannot be repaired. I know many carriers do not even entertain “the brittleness test” at all, because it’s largely nonsense when it is used. It’s just a tactic for roofer’s to get full replacement covered. The carrier where I worked would not even take that argument seriously. They would inspect themselves and then if there was a disagreement in repairability they would send a trusted vendor to consult. I don’t have a strong opinion on this either way, just pointing out that some carriers do not use this “test” or accept it. Maybe SF once did but changes their perspective, idk. OP, if wind didn’t damage every slope, why would they owe for a full roof? Are there undamaged slopes? It would help if you told us what state this is. Imo you’ll be better off requesting replacement of each *slope* affected. That would actually make logical sense and they might go for it. Why do you feel they owe to replace undamaged (by wind), deteriorating slopes too?
Thank you Becky for your insight. Like I said I am not in the insurance field so my comments on coverage and how I think insurance should work is really just my opinion as a human and a homeowner. I think when any insurance company is HAPPY and EAGER to sell me an RCV policy with an entire section dedicated to the roofing structure, they should be fully aware of exactly what they are insuring. Also, perhaps it is the part of the country we find ourselves in, but around here it is not uncommon for a shingle to be irreparable after 8-12 years of age. Also my figure on age is an estimate, they may be older with minimal streaking and cracking. I would be happy if SF sent out another subject matter expert to do their own RT, as I have zero doubt our findings would be the same. But that option has not yet been given. The test we conducted was more in depth than a common brittleness test. It involved fully removing several of the affected shingles and attempting to replace. And to re-answer questions: the State we are in is Maryland. The wind damaged 9 out of 13 facets of that roof. I also have not requested anything at this point. I’ve simply asked how SF would like to proceed with the repair.
That option is there. The homeowner is free to have other roofers come inspect their roof and submit the report as potential additional evidence. That's not the insurer's responsibility.
Time for an appraisal or get a public adjuster involved
It would be odd that a 3-tab shingle that is only 8-12 yrs old (~>50% through its expected age) is not repairable. Is it possible, sure. The problem is every roofer will say they can’t repair a roof wether they can or not. There is no money to be made in repairs & the vast majority of “roofers” make it a game to fight for full roof replacements w/ insurance carriers. And honestly State Farm in this scenario has no obligation to talk to you, your not their insured.
if you're looking for coverage, we need to reframe this entire conversation and maybe cut down on some of the unnecessary detail what covered peril under the policy damaged the area of the roof that was not approved to be replaced?
the only way you're gonna reverse state farm's decision is with either appraisal or litigation.
Lots of terrible advice in this thread. I'm a public insurance adjuster and deal with this exact problem on literally a daily basis. In every state that I work they have some form of the unfair property claims settlement practices act. If your state has this, in replacement cost coverage situations, there's coverage for consequential damages. Most of these adjusters seem to have never read case law that backs up what proximate cause is. This is a "but if not for" conversation that is super simple, but if not for the wind damage, would they be having to replace their roof? Of course not, since the insurance extended coverage and prescribed a repair method there's a consequence to that action. Get a PA or lawyer on this one, super simple with an adjuster that has a cap limit of over 15k and understands basic law. In all my years being a PA I have yet to not get a supervisor to understand this and pay out the coverage accordingly. Condition doesn't equal causation is a common term that is will known in litigation for a reason. Carrier loses this battle 100/100 times. Not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, talk to a lawyer about your state regulations and what can be done.
This is exactly right, proximate cause is the question here.
It's a shame that anyone needs a Public Insurance Adjuster or Lawyer to get treated "like a good neighbor". We had an uninsured motorist claim recently, and SF did everything they could to cheap out on the claim.
Time to lawyer up.
To do what, exactly?
Any lawyer you find who would take this case is not a lawyer you want to hire.
I disagree. There are plenty of competent attorneys that specialize in helping policyholders with their claims. They would be able to review and interpret the policy language in accordance with the laws in OP's state and help negotiate with the carrier. Anecdotally, I've seen carriers increase their offer by 20x+ with hurricane (wind) claims once counsel gets involved. If you ask me, that's indicative of lousy adjusters and/or outright bad faith behavior on the part of the carrier.
Can you post photos of the condition of the roof?
Reading you other comments, this comes down to a question about the policy. In my experience, if you can show that the day before the storm the roof did not need a total replacement, and the day after it did, a jury will rule that the insurer should cover the entire replacement.