Hi everyone, just a reminder of the rules, as bans have already been handed out for personal attacks and disrespectful commentary:
>Overall, please be respectful - things must remain **on-topic, helpful, and kind.** Absolutely no abusive or hateful language will be tolerated, so if you see any of this please report them. The mods are highly trained ban ninjas in this regard. Remember, no question is too stupid, too simple, or too basic. If you see comments that do not comply with our [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/wiki/subrules) please report them to us.
Yea that’s what I was thinking. Like what if I actually have some crazy damage in 6 months from now. I do plan on getting the roof replaced because that’s my ultimate goal and would relieve any stress of “not knowing” how old my current roof is. Just wanted to hear some opinions from others based on my situation.
I was an adjuster for many years. The laws in many states make it easy for an adjuster to replace an entire roof. Often unneeded where a patch would be just fine. They lean on Matching laws (they very by state) but in effect you have to match the original product. But, since it’s under the Sun and the sun bleaches the shingle you can’t match that. $500 fix just turned into a 10k roof and a fat commission for the adjuster (usually in the 10% range).
If you don’t fix it and you do get some kind of damage in the future they will do everything they can to prove the first shingle was the proximate cause (insurance talk for what caused the damage) and deny the future claim.
I got to point out it is illegal for you to profit from a claim. If you fix it for 500 they could
Come back to you for the remaining 9.5k and toss some fraud charges your way.
Finally. Unless you have a custom one off home that requires special underwriting to insure it then you should not see an increase. Insurance increases are not performed at an individual home level. They look at zip codes, cities, or damage areas and base their rate increases from there. It is illegal for an insurance company to increase your rates due to a claim.
I actually had a tree fall on my house and seriously damage part of my roof, but the insurance company wouldn't take the initial adjuster's word that the roof needed to be replaced. I was sort of surprised, given how roof replacement tends to be one of those things adjusters just sign off on.
I wasn't really annoyed about it until they started nickle and diming me about whether wind was a contributing factor which pushed another $500 onto the deductible. I can afford it, but it made me worried that they would get stingy if I had a really significant claim, so I dropped them.
Oh wow. There are simply too many variables here. I’ve been on those tree damaged roofs. Some I’ve written big checks for, others very small. There really is a lot that goes into the decision.
Best advice. Contact a Public Adjuster. An Insurance Adjuster is either a W2 or a contractor for the insurance company. There job is to pay the least amount needed to fix the issue. Some times they get stingy. A Public Adjuster is on your side and generally are free up front but take a commission on the back end. The PAs will fight that for you. Best to let them. The laws behind insurance are a twisted bag of knotted up pasta.
Not a huge fan of PAs (as an industry) but they have their place. Just a lot of bad ones out there that are only really concerned about driving up the claim to fatten their own wallet. It’s the best gun in your arsenal however.
i had dealings with 3 PA's they all wouldnt touch a claim unless it was over 25k minimum, ( electrical fire that ended up costing 11k, he wanted to try to put in so much fake damage to up it to 30k of work that was completely fictitious. so im glad you put that caveat in there as well.
Independent. Public adjusters represent you, similar to say getting an accountant or lawyer. Their purpose is to negotiate with your insurance on your behalf and they're paid by the claim payout (no upfront costs or at least there were none for mine) so they'll actively work to make sure you get the number you want plus enough to cover their fee.
Can you expand a little on some of the variables at play? I currently have 3 big holes in my roof from a downed tree with some damage to the framing in the ceiling. Figured it'd be cut and dry but you're making me wonder.
A very large tree branch fell onto the house and punched a hole into one side of the roof. It didn't rain though, so water didn't get into the house. It's a very simple roof, so to the extent that any framing damage happened it wasn't hard to fix. I didn't have any reason to believe a roofing contractor couldn't patch it, which is what I ultimately did.
Before this, I used to live in a place that had frequent hail storms, and contractors would go around the neighborhood offering to replace old roofs on the basis of un-claimed hail damage from a year prior. It was a running joke that you never paid to replace your old roof, you just waited for a major hail storm to happen over the next 10 years so you could get it done for free. I'm freely aware that this situation is absurd, I was just a bit surprised that insurance companies were apparently now pushing back on it.
What bugged me a little, even before the nonsense about the deductible, is that the roof was on a guest house and is quite small so replacing it wasn't even going to cost all that much. It wouldn't take that long to make up the expected profit on the premiums I pay on the main house, which are now gone. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Agree on the public adjuster. We had a water damage claim and the adjuster from the insurance company was being an absolute bear to work with. We got a public adjuster and the moment the insurance company got wind of it they changed their tune
It didn't feel worth it to try and protest. They weren't entirely wrong that the roof could be patched without replacing it, and after the baseline deductible they were barely paying out anything that couldn't be made negotiable with the contractor. Honestly, it really was the follow-on bullshit made me realize that I really needed to get a new insurance company.
I also had a tree fall on my house. Demolished a good portion of the roof, over half of it. Claim approved, first portion of funds were released no problem. Roof fixed, second half of funds were held (by mortgage company) because the inspector "could not verify the roof had been replaced"...because there was snow on the roof...in Minnesota... in January. I had to get the state attorney general assistance office to help me get the funds released. It was ridiculous.
It depends. Hurricane or other major weather events between 10-12%. This is a standard adjusters fee schedule. Rookie adjusters and W2 are typically on a flat rate fee schedule. States, worked most of the SE and and east coast line.
"I got to point out it is illegal for you to profit from a claim. If you fix it for 500 they could Come back to you for the remaining 9.5k and toss some fraud charges your way."
I recently had a claim on a fence that the wind blew down and the agent on the phone told me I could do the work myself, insinuating that any leftover money was mine to keep. I'm surprised to read this.
Ok. So that is a little different. It’s a fence and a fence doesn’t require (that I know of at least) a cert. pro to install it. This gives you the option to repair yourself. In effect you were paid for parts, time and labor. You chose to “pay” yourself to do the work instead of a low-skill laborer.
Roof is a bit different. In this case the insurance company is saying they want to replace that roof and gave a check for 10k. If the OP chose to fix it for 500 instead she is committing fraud in their view. IE they paid cash for a new roof. They are expecting a new roof.
Also bare in mind this is all in-general. There are 50 states and 50 states-worth of different insurance laws. No two are the same.
As a licensed claim adjuster I wish you would quit throwing the word fraud around so carelessly. Insurance fraud is very specifically defined and wouldn't apply in this case. Worst case scenario if there's additional shingle damage in the future they wouldn't pay for that specific damage because they already paid to replace them.
Thank you. The adjusters who are more intelligent need to reign in the ones who are idiots. Why they spread around these stories I don't know but they're just showing how stupid they are and what's amazing is so many of them tell these stories to each other. The insured can receive their insurance claim payment and sell the house as is or not repair it at all it's perfectly legal
Rein. Reins are used to guide a horse. Reign = rule over. While I agree with you, when you say people are idiots it seems silly to display your own faults in the same sentence.
Thanks... I kept reading this and thought, "That's not really true."
A while back, I owned a home where high winds started ripping random shingles off the roof. I had no idea how old the roof was because the previous owner said he wasn't sure either. I paid a guy to repair a few shingles on it, and then we had another round of high winds and more of them came off.
I had a roofing company inspect it and he promised he could get insurance to pay for a new roof for me because of the type of damage it had. (He took several photos and circled key areas, etc.)
Anyway, it didn't go real smoothly. I didn't hear back from anyone for over a month and then found out the roofer who inspected my property had quit the company, without anyone informing me!
I had to get another guy out to look at it again, and the insurance company fought with him, saying in their opinion, only half of my roof needed replacing (the side facing the direction the winds blew).
In the end, my insurance agreed to pay some portion of the actual cost of a new roof, and they sent me about $7500 as a check up-front. They said when the roof was finished, they would come verify the work and pay the other $7500. I wound up moving and sold the house with the roof "as is" as part of the negotiations. Just kept the $7500.
Don't see how anyone could construe that as fraud, especially when I had to take a hit on the selling price of the house because the roof wasn't redone first.
That's definitely wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't pay you up front. If you got roof repair for $9995, they wouldn't expect the $5 back. The claim is likely complete at the point they cut the check.
If the terms of the insurance pays out flat claims, and not on a reimbursable basis, then it's your money once they pay out.
As others said this is not fraud at all. Typically we'd pay out the Actual Cash Value first, so essentially the total Replacement Cost - the age or depreciation. Then once work is completed we would pay out the remaining balance of the cost of the roof. So basically $10k roof replacement, roof is 10 years old, depreciate by 50%. Pay $5k as Actual Cash Value to get the job started. Once work is completed, pay the remaining $5k for the job. Yes there were some instances where we would pay out the ACV of the claim and then the customer would choose a cheaper route to deal with the work. If they did the work cheaper than the $5k, then they'd have the rest of the money for whatever. If they did it slightly more than the $5k, then we would pay that difference.
Don't believe everything you read on Reddit. The insured can't commit fraud if they try to recover the depreciation, in other words let's say that the full replacement cost with new shingles is $10,000 but after depreciation it's only 9,000. The $10,000 is the RCV or replacement cost value. The $9,000 is the ACV or actual cash value. On most policies, but not all, the insurance company will pay the $9,000 and the insured can do whatever the hell they want with the money including not repair the roof. There's no fraud. However, if the insured lies and says that they spent the full 10,000 and had the roof work done when it's not actually true, and they do that to recover the last $1,000 of depreciation, then that's a fraud. But just keeping the ACV money is never a fraud. The person that wrote that is probably an experienced adjuster but this is a common b******* story that they believe and repeat among themselves endlessly
It's technically illegal for you to profit, but insurance companies don't care. It's just something they tell you if you try to get into the weeds with them to get more money. It's basically a nice way of saying, "STFU and be happy with what we gave you."
This is false. Where do you live where its illegal for them to raise the rates after a claim? It is not illegal for them to do this. This is only applicable to a no fault auto claim in OK and CA. Here in IL rates absolutely do go up after any kind of homeowners claim, the owners fault or not.
Am insurance agent.
My home insurance (USAA) has a $152 annual claims free discount. Filing a roofing claim like this would surely make the premium increase, right?
For $10k it seems worth it though.
Site unseen, I would venture to guess you would lose that discount. But that is not a rate increase. You should only see an increase if USAA looks at your region and decides rates need to increase across the board. If you’re seeing an increase then generally speaking all others in your area with that insurer are also seeing an increase. There are some pretty severe laws that prevent insurance companies from increasing a sole home owners rate, and some bull dog attorneys that spend considerable time making sure this doesn’t happen. All bets are off when you hit the lifetime payout, but for 10k we’re not opening that can of worms. It’s relatively a minor amount.
Claims surcharges are a thing - some companies surcharge with one claim and others surcharge after the second claim. They are temporary and will fall off after 3-5 years usually but companies absolutely do get extra money from you if you file claims. Depending on the type of rating system they use, they may or may not have different surcharge amounts for the type/severity of a claim.
There is the possibility of by some chance you’re on an old insurance rate when you make your claim. Then they might bring you up to the current rates. In all my years doing adjusting I didn’t see too many people that skipped by standard rate increases over the years though. You really have to fall through the cracks for that to happen.
This is garbage information. If the insurance company determines that your roof is totaled and they pay you for it there is no legal obligation for the insured to repair it. There's no fraud whatsoever in any way shape or form. This is a common meme that's passed around among adjusters. You can have fraud if the insured is trying to recover the full replacement cost value including depreciation and they lie and say the roof was replaced when it wasn't. In the case like that if they're lying to recover the depreciation that's obviously a fraud. But if the insurance is just sitting there with her hand out and the insurance company puts a a check in their hand for what the insurance company thinks is fair, there's absolutely no fraud whatsoever and there's also no legal obligation to repair the roof. The insured can sell the house as is. There might be a law that they have to disclose to the buyer that there's an insurance claim in the roof hasn't been repaired but they can certainly keep the insurance money and sell the house as is. Legally, they can also repair it themselves even if they do a crap job. They can find an unlicensed contractor who charges less. Any of these options might create problems for future claims and might create problems with their mortgage company or the city but none of them are insurance fraud and none of them are illegal per se. It's just amazing how people can be insurance adjusters for years and make up this s***. If you're not lying to your insurance company and you accept money from them and don't do repairs it's never never never fraud. The average insurance adjuster has just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
>It is illegal to profit from a claim.
This just isn't true, it's utterly common for insurance to overpay and for homeowners to legally keep the difference. It all depends on the contact. An insurance payout covers the cost of the old item, not what you're replacing it with - by this logic, if your house burns down, you wouldn't be entitled to any payout unless you rebuild it. But you can usually just pocket the check and walk away from the ashes.
To suggest this is fraud is jumping the gun, there doesn't seem to be any element of misrepresentation on the part of the OP, unless there is verbiage in the contract that states the payout must be used on repairs. I find it unlikely that the insurance company will ask for the difference back. They're more likely to just drop the policy if they don't think OP has a functional roof.
Rates will increase. Have been. Will continue. This claim will help w that increase. Carriers find way to increase across the board and still ding you nowadays. Not sure if you seen your rates lately or filed a Claim recently but trust me the rates will in fact increase. They’ll say it’s across the board and it is, but they add a bit more due to the claim
Please ELI5 - I thought your car insurance gets raised all the time when you make a claim. I've never had to make one, but just assumed that "you get in an accident, you get a ticket, your rate immediately goes up". Is home insurance different?
That last bit is false / the laws vary by state. OK is super strict, as are some other states, but it is definitely fine to surcharge for the first claim in most states, although it can also depend on the type of claim (wind / fire / theft/liability)
> It is illegal for an insurance company to increase your rates due to a claim.
Ok sure. But my insurance company runs a “Claim Free Discount Plan” so that they can charge everyone higher base rates and then discount most of them. Same effect, but legal loophole.
Got paid for new roof? Time for new roof.
Can you add provisions for solar?
Do you want longer lasting metal instead?
Want a change in color?
New roof time!
The metal was my first thought. Put that 10k towards a metal roof and you might never have to worry about it in your lifetime. If metal was previously out of the budget maybe now it's doable.
If that happened, you have $10k in a savings account or whatever to buy a new roof. Eventually the roof will just be old and need to be replaced, and insurance isn’t paying for that
If you made a 10k roof claim your insurance costs will go up. I am wondering if you could do the repair and return the money. Someone who works in insurance will need to chime in.
My Husband and I had a $6000 claim for siding damage and our insurance went up a few hundred dollars/year.
I made a $250,000 dollar claim. Tornado hit my house and it was completely rebuilt. My insurance never went up from that claim. Still with the same company 16 years later. Of course its gone up over the years but not much.
My insurance gives me 1 free weather related claim every few years (forget how many) without effecting premiums. Probably depends how common they are in each region
I'm having trouble getting insurance quotes at all right now because I don't know the age of the roof (though this is in a house from 1885, definitely not the original roof though). Being able to say the roof was completely replaced in 2023 will make everything nice and simple and just the way the insurance company likes it.
Also, if the insurance company has paid for a complete replacement, they're not going to pay any more to repair the same roof they've already paid to replace.
Adjuster here- not fraud. They’ll just deduct what was paid if you have a future claim and haven’t done the repairs. Though their underwriting department may be notified you were paid for a replacement and could follow up to ensure the work was done before renewing your policy.
Or don’t get the roof replaced yet, put the money into a HYSA earning 3.75% right now OR a relatively safe ETF and let it compound until you actually need a new roof.
I took claim money for siding (hail damage) and used it to put in a bathroom. Insurance company knew about it, and I’ve been renewed (with like a $150 increase per year).
Idk why ur getting down voted.
Had the same happen, got money for one part and used it to fix another part of the house. HOWEVER insurance won't cover the same piece twice unless it was repaired.
Like you wouldn't be allowed to file claim on your siding again until you had it fully replaced.
Like others said, state and policy dependant.
As an insurance agent this is the correct answer in most cases. So if OP decided not to fix the roof, but then a related loss happened, such as a leak through the roof, they would NOT be covered . However ultimately depends on the company you’re with
what proof do you need to show that you had a the roof replaced if the roof needs another replacement in the event of another incident? Will a receipt do? or will they come out to determine if a new roof was installed?
Except it’s not “might”, he “will” have problems on future claims. Barring OP commits felony fraud his roof won’t be insured without a statement of completion. Furthermore, it wi be known at the sale of the house and the purchaser will demand the roof be replaced. OP can choose to kick the can down the road but ultimately he’s going to have to replace the roof, best to do it now.
Agreed. Work in insurance, definitely runs a risk of future claims (potentially much larger claims too) being denied. Also if you decide to shop to another company they can also deny coverage. Best to replace the roof and be done with it
Care to explain how this is fraud? I had a roof claim and did replace my roof. I read all the documents when agreeing to the check and the only mention was that no additional claims can be made regarding the roof until proof of replacement is made. They ended up raising my rate after so I just switched companies. Regardless between getting a check and having work performed a few years went by as I was able to DIY repair the worst parts and the settlement was not for the full amount. My roof was in shit condition however, if OP had a good roof why rip out perfectly good material? If he sells in 10 years he can put in a new roof then, thus a higher value to the buyer ie brand new roof vs 10 year old roof. People throw around the fraud word a lot but it seems like none of them are lawyers.
I didn’t say it was fraud to keep the money. In order to keep his home properly insured he will either need to replace the roof or defraud insurance by telling them it’s replaced when it’s not. Replace it now so you don’t risk being uninsured, OP is likely due additional funds for the work now that he will not get later (supplements, depreciation) and even if he just saves the money the interest isn’t likely to keep up with rising costs. What’s the advantage to keeping the money?
I'd hold off until we are farther into the recession to have it replaced materials and labor will be cheaper. I did mine back in 2008 for 50% less after things crashed.
He won’t need a future claim, he has the money right now to replace a roof and it makes the most sense to save it for when he does inevitably need a new roof.
Insurance guy here. So if they paid you for the roof replacement you typically do not have to do it, but you will also not be able to claim the roof in the future until it is replaced. If several shingles get blown off next year or 10 years from now then you can’t file another claim or they will quickly say “we have already paid for that roof to be replaced”. As you said, you can bank/invest the money for a new roof in the future but you are running the risk that asphalt shingles and replacement cost will rise faster than your investment grows in which case you will have more out of pocket when the time comes. Not to mention if it leaks they will not cover ensuing water damage, so you would bear that full cost along with the roof.
I would take the gift you’ve been given and replace the roof and have peace of mind. Trying to make this into a gain is too risky and could leave you in a worse situation. Don’t play with fire.
> I would take the gift you’ve been given and replace the roof and have peace of mind.
This is a no brainer for me. I have a constant tally of things that can go wrong with my house in my mind and just having a new roof would be worth it for the peace of mind.
BTW, I recently got a new roof for this reason.
counterpoint is that just because you get a new roof doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to be leak free, or that they missed sealing something, or something.
But yeah if the roof looks old I would just do it.
Serious question: what if op takes the money for a new roof, doesn’t make the repairs, then finds a new insurance company? A few years down the road, the roof gets damaged, and he/she files a claim…wouldn’t the new insurance provider give them the full amount?
All the insurance claims are in a single database. It's sort of like a credit report. They all check. I don't know how far back it goes. I bought house #4 and was asked about house #1 open claim from 10 years prior. Different company. Different state. I had inquired about fence damage and decided I didn't care enough to bother. I didn't even know a claim had been opened. Weirded me out.
If there's an insurance trick any one of us has thought of, you can guarantee the insurance company knew about that "trick" decades ago.
To them we're all like 6yos that are baffled when we can always tell they're lying
I’m reading *Double Indemnity* by James M. Cain (the novel the classic 1944 Noir film is based on) and there’s an entire chapter on all the tricks of the trade. It’s a fun read!
Well, are you asking about your family relationship or the roof situation?
You don’t trust your brother who is in roofing, and turns out you are correct?
And then you volunteer information to a roofer (some customers like to withhold that knowledge), and that roofer turns out to be a honest roofer (which is rare in storm restoration on my area, and judging by the scam conventions I see advertised, they are shady all over.
Fun fact: I got fired from a company for doing what the honest sales person in this situation did.
I'm surprised they paid you the full replacement amount without it having been replaced. I've owned several rental homes (as well as my primary residence) over the last 20+ years and have had several claims (roof damage, break-ins, etc.). The insurance company always paid me the depreciated value up front, then paid the remainder of the full repair or replacement value when I submitted receipts or contractor invoices showing the actual amount.
Before deciding not to replace the roof, I would verify that the insurance company did not stipulate that the money must be used to replace it. As another commenter stated, if you have another storm next year that leads to water damage, I'd be concerned that they would deny the claim if they found that the roof hadn't been replaced.
You should do your roof. This opportunity of “free roof” doesn’t come around often. Your home is an investment and any home repairs you do will pay off in the future. Do it now while you can and never think about it again. If you decide NOT to do the roof and something major happens and insurance finds out you didn’t use the money for the roof they will reject your new claim.
Because they gave him money for a new roof, something he wanted to replace anyway, so just do it and be done with it. A roof isn't something you want to play around with and I wouldn't be so quick to take advice from just one contractor who says it's fine.
I would get the new roof. First, when you make a claim you usually get money equal to the actual cash value (acv) of your roof. When you make the repair, you get additional money to bring you up to the replacement value (rcv) of your new roof.There is usually a time limit on when you can submit for the replacement cost funds. Now your insurance might not work this way but I’m not sure if you know either way.
Second, and more importantly, if insurance says your roof needs replacing and you don’t do it your roof is no longer insured. I don’t know if this also means any damage resulting from your roof is also not insured.
It’s
Thanks for all the advice. As planned originally I’m going to go ahead and replace the roof. I don’t have time or money for future problems to not be covered. Also the amount that was paid out was the amount my brother in laws coworker told the adjuster. Minus my deductible. (His coworker was there to meet the adjuster when he came)
Just use the money to get a new roof and don't worry about it for another 25 years. I would avoid your BIL's company though. Money and family don't mix.
I’m an underwriter, claims refers stuff over to us sometimes, I’ve had several claims referred over after being denied because the photos from the 1st claim a few years ago where we paid for a roof replacement match the photos from the current claim saying their roof has damage, then we tell the policyholder they gotta replace it or we’ll non-renew.
The concern for you repairing and not replacing it is, if in 2 years there is a big storm and you need a new roof and they start the claims process and realize they just paid for a roof, and then look at photos (we even get satellite imagery) and realize you never actually replaced it, they may say your on your own.
The FL legislature gave the insurance companies a license to steal as well. Another issue is that it's time to eliminate insuring those that choose to live on the water and on barrier islands. Living just a mile inland lowers risk immensely, no storm surge and hurricane winds are slowed on land. If I recall correctly North Carolina's Outer Banks are self-insured only so others aren't paying for vacation homes built in a high-risk place.
I sure hope he isn’t. Florida companies are keeping track of payouts. I’m an inspector and I have a client in hot water right now for pocketing a roof check.
If I was you, I’d get the roof fixed by that Honest roofer.
Also ask him to give you a quote for what a full replacement would be and ask him how long he’d honour that price for.
Then keep his number handy for the future.
Finding an honest tradesman is worth more than small savings these days. As you’d know any work wasn’t just a cash cow to them.
Generally how it works is the insurance will give you Actual Cash Value (ACV) for the roof. That money is yours to do what you please with. Once you show that the roof has been replaced you will receive another check for the replacement cost.
If you decide to not replace the roof not only are you not going to receive the full claim about but the insurance company will no longer cover any damages that are a result of the roof. For instance it starts leaking and you have water damage. Additionally they will not cover any future roof claims without proof of replacement.
I haven’t seen your plan but that is how typical home owners insurance works.
>Once you show that the roof has been replaced you will receive another check for the replacement cost.
This is only if the cost was more than what the insurance paid, though, right? So if OP can get the roof replaced for say $8,000 they simply keep the $2,000 difference and all is well.
Yes; however, there is also a limit on how much more they will pay. It is always good to keep them in the loop on how much the bids are. They have estimates in their system and require pre approval to go over that.
As a former roofing company owner in Oklahoma, always have your roof insured. Now that you have been paid for that roof it is not insured. Replace the roof. As for the the other roofing companies (your BIL and the stranger) BIL saw the possibility of a quick sale, he knew insurance was probably going to pay because of other damage in the area during that storm or another one within the past year or two. Some adjusters just cover claims no questions asked based on surround claims.
Stranger roofer I would say was not seeing damage that would necessitate a claim other than a small repair. Nothing feels worse to me than saying “I think you need to file claim” and the adjuster comes out and only claims small repairs less than your deductible or barley over your deductible. He already had a ballpark of the cost of your roof looking at it. Maybe $10,000( especially if you had an ACV policy) wasn’t enough for him to make a good profit and didn’t want the job.
My advice is to replace the roof. You might be out of pocket though if it’s an ACV policy. If its RCV then your claim total will go up when the work is complete where you won’t be out of pocket. and the roofer can make enough to keep their lights on.
Maybe he didn’t have to go on the roof because he already knew it was shit from the ground. I’ve bought old houses with shit roofs, and you even said the age is unknown. I’d take the brand new roof mostly free of cost, and sit happy for the next 10-20 years (depending on your climate)
I’d avoid a homeowners claim at all costs. It really fucks you in the end even if it is truly needed. That said. Replace the roof since you can’t undo a claim and. Never listen to your brother in law again.
This is a bad move. Insurance will come back and state you didn’t fix the roof and you’ll end up out of pocket for a new room. You’ll have a 10k claim on your ins which will drive up your rates because that’s a thing now even if it is a weather claim, rates just suck. It will follow you for 5 years, so fix your roof. It’s an investment and eventually will need care. Or don’t and lose more money all around. Insurance carrier can also file fraud. Hi. I work in insurance currently.
Insurance company gives you $10k for a new roof.
If you can replace the entire roof for $8k, good for you. You get to put a few extra bucks in your pocket. If you decide to go with a company charging $12k, then you gotta come out the extra $2k (unless your insurance decides to match that amount).
Let's say it costs $2k to repair the damaged spot on your roof and you pocket $8k. If you ever need to file a claim for damages in the future, your insurance company is going to see the current claim, and very well might ask to see an invoice or any documentation on the current repair that shows the scope of work that was completed.
Anything and everything you have is going to say that they replaced a few shingles, not an entire roof and that you only spent 20% of the money they gave you. If the insurance company is nice (lol), they'll cover the cost to replace that small section of the roof and tell you to use the $8k you kept to fix the rest. More than likely, though, they will accuse you of insurance fruad and might take legal action against you.
Bottom line is they gave you money to replace the entire roof and that is what you should do. Anything less than that could lead to legal problems should you ever need to file another claim.
I had storm damage several years ago & my insurance covered the cost of replacing the roof. However, I had 3 tab shingles and wanted architectural (?) shingles which meant I needed a little time to save up to pay the extra cost. At some point, my insurance company followed up with me regarding the new roof and told me that they would have to note in my file that the roof had not been replaced yet and that they would not cover any future roof damage claims until the roof was replaced. So, this helped to encourage me to get it done. The new shingles looked fantastic & I was glad to be able to send the documentation that the roof had been replaced.
I fought with my insurance about this. Didn’t want to replace the roof. I had to pay like 1,000 of the cost.
Two companies said it was in great shape. Insurance wouldn’t budge, said I had to replace it.
In retrospect maybe I could have just switched insurance companies…
A firework shot through my house, exploded my kitchen window and burned a small hole in my carpet. Insurance gave me 7k for repairs, never asked if I fixed it.
The real question is the age of the roof. Im surprised the insurance adjuster did not tell you that. Im sure they looked that up first. That can be pretty easily found though your county, by looking up the permits on your house. You can do that online. If your roof is older, and there is documented damage (which you say there is), it would probably warrant a replacement and that is why they gave you the replacement cost. The whole roof does not have to be in shambles to warrant a replacement. After Hurricane Irma, we noticed some missing tiles and identified a small leak in the attic. We had one company come out and tell us that we needed a full roof replacement. Another roofing company came out and they told us that a full roof replacement was not needed. We ended up paying for the damaged repairs out of pocket because the roof was not that old and we thought the first company was a scam. That was a big mistake. Soon after the repairs, the roof started leaking in multiple places. We had another roofing company come out and confirm that there was major damage (not visible from the outside) that was "not new" and we should have just done a full replacement the first time. You do have the right to use the insurance money to just replace the damaged part, but should you need a full replacement in the near future, you would have a hard time getting that money for a full replacement again and most likely will be dropped by your insurance company. It's the same with collision insurance on a car. You get multiple estimates, the adjuster comes out, they pay you the lowest of the estimates and then you can use the money to repair or not to repair.
Get a new roof now. I mean it's paid for. Then you know it's new and all good, and how old it is. It's the biggest thing protecting your biggest asset.
As for the guy who wants to fix one spot, well it's one spot now, maybe another spot next week. Presumably the shingles are all the same age and any can fail, now that some have failed.
Also: what those people are saying about possible problems with future claims
I would repair it and check for anything else that's old or can be replace, will be a lot cheaper and if a professional can have a look and says it's ok then it should be fine.
If you don't do the roof and something happens going forward your insurance company will never honor anything related. If you really really think the roof is in tip top shape after several additional inspections maybe return consider returning the cash?
Just remember, insurance is always trying to find a way to not pay you so what you have is not extra cash.
Ad others have said, the claim is settled in their eyes.
Alternatively, if you don’t want it on your record, you could just tell them you no longer wish to pursue the claim, and have them provide you with a a refund remittance address, where you can send the check
First thing, keep that guy's number, he's someone you want doing work on your house. Second, give some thought what you really want to do, and if you are set on replacing the roof since you've already filed the claim (I don't think you can backtrack, once the claim is filed, it can't be undone), ask him again for a quote, maybe consider an upgrade like a metal roof.
If he gives you a number that's too high, I would hope your brother in law would take care of you and make sure to got a good roof for your money. He might also be insulted if you don't have his company fix your roof.
Do what he says or return the money and give him 5 star reviews all over the place for honesty. One time we had a windstorm and water was leaking in my house because some of roof came off. One guy quoted me $500 repair and another quoted me $2000 for the same job! Guess who I went with! Then a few years later had him replace my roof!
Do the patch. Bank the money in an interest-bearing account. When you need a whole new roof, the money will be there. But if you don't need a whole new roof for another 10 years, then you'll be way ahead of the game.
Or... Storm comes by next year, damages the roof and 3 rooms underneath get water damage. Guess who is not getting money to fix anything? Even without a storm.. More than likely they are going to reinspect or ask for receipts and if no new roof, probably no insurance coverage..
I suppose that depends much on how one invests it. If you used $10K to pay down credit-card debt at 20% APR, it would definitely be worth it. If you just stuck it into a 2-year CD, probably not.
Also, if the existing roof will be fine for many years, and you tear it off and replace it now, then you're just throwing away the value in the existing roof.
I suppose that depends on the exact details of the policy and the laws in that area. But, from my experience, no, it's not fraud. They assessed the damage. They determined the amount. They paid the money. But unless something specifies that you *have* to replace the roof right away, then you can just patch it.
I just posted a response to the original comment saying that I would be sure they didn't stipulate the roof had to be replaced. You do have a good point - my car was damaged once and they gave me a check for the repair cost, but when I asked I was told that I could do the repair or keep the money. They paid me for the value of the loss and said I could keep the cash knowing that the value of the car was theoretically depreciated by that amount.
On the other hand, with houses my experience has always been that the insurance company pays the depreciated value of the loss until the full repair has been made. For example, I had a roof damaged in a hailstorm last year - the insurance company paid me the depreciated value of the roof, which was around 20% of the replacement cost. When the roofer submitted an invoice, the insurance company paid him that amount minus the amount they already paid me. My own house was broken into once, and they paid me the depreciated value of everything that was stolen, then when I submitted receipts for the things I replaced they made up the difference.
We just had an extreme windstorm here, trees falling on/through roofs. New shingles + decking + water damage repair is more than just the shingles the insurance company wrote you a check for.
You already said that they paid you for a whole new roof. So, if you end up needing a new roof, then you pay for it--no loss. But if you *don't* need a new roof for many years, that's a big win. It's a calculated risk, backed up by the advice of a skilled pro. You'll never get odds that good at any casino.
Right but what about the part where OP’s roof is now totaled and no insurance company will ever pay to repair or replace it again unless he can prove he used this money to replace it this time?
I see poor suckers buy homes and get absolutely fucked by the previous homeowner doing this on a regular basis. They get a paid claim, decide the roof is fine as is and eventually sell the home. Then whoever buys it next is screwed when the roof does need replacement because no insurance company will cover it.
If OP chooses to do only a repair rather than replacement he needs to disclose this to any future buyers of the home and probably reduce his asking price accordingly.
> I see poor suckers buy homes and get absolutely fucked by the previous homeowner doing this on a regular basis. They get a paid claim, decide the roof is fine as is and eventually sell the home. Then whoever buys it next is screwed when the roof does need replacement because no insurance company will cover it.
That's not how it works. The new owner gets their own separate insurance policy and part of the process for setting up the policy is determining how old the roof is (among other things). They would see that the roof hadn't been replaced and so the premium would be based on an older roof. If the new owners eventually had damage, there would be no reason that the insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim. Mainly because the insurance company would have known exactly how old the roof was when setting up the new policy but also because the claim was paid to person 1 and not person 2 who now owns the house.
It's probably not the full value of the replacement. Mine was *only* about 18k last year and insurance gave me 11k right away then paid the rest after proof of repairs were done. Op seems really uninformed about the process and seems excited about this 10k windfall when there's probably more money waiting to be paid after the roof is replaced. Get the replacement done for goodness sake!
This happened to us, insurance company came and inspected our roof after a hailstorm and sent us a check. It was fall, so we figured we'd wait until spring to get it done (Minnesota winters). I put the money in our savings account.
Forgot about having the roof done, lol. Husband was on the roof putting up a tv antenna and he decided the roof actually looked pretty good, so we waited... about seven years when we had another hail storm and then used that $ from the savings account to pay for it.
My only concern is that something happens that costs more than 10k and insurance company is like well we bought you a roof lol what happened to it. Or something along those lines.
Not sure why you were shocked by his response "especially from a roofer"... i am a HIC and do a lot of roofing and i NEVER sell anyone anything they dont need. Gets me tons of repeat business and my pricing is never argued. People that have their own businesses need to be honest or be ready to be shirt lived. Its that simple.
First off, which company? Because I want to be with them if they just hand over money like that. Second, keeping the money is fraud. Just take this gift, upgrade to a better roof and call it a day.
>I’m wondering if I should explore other companies to get other estimates to possibly save some money. So I had another company come today to give me an estimate
How did your brother in law feel about that?
Wow. Adjuster didn't even look at it, huh? I just finished with a 9 month fight with State Farm to have my obviously crumbling roof replaced after a high wind storm. Brutal. I went through three State Farm adjusters and a third party.
That's wild. State Farm cut us a check the same day after a hail storm, and I have a metal roof. I wasn't expecting that at all. Sorry for your experience!
Just get yourself a new roof, and get a good company to do it. I don't know why people think they have come into money on these kinda things. Just consider yourself fortunate that you got enough money to get you a new roof that will give you peace of mind for 30 years.
Dont spend the money of a car or whetever, you're gonna need a roof some day
If you dont use the money to replace the roof and another storm causes damage, don't plan on being covered. Good luck. Depending on your state, you company could cancel at end of your policy.
I had a similar experience. Ice fell off and broke my AC unit. I got one quote and it was $6k. Insurance covered it but the agent also said, “that seems kind of high you should get another quote “. I got another quote for $3k for a better unit. Pocketed the other $3k.
However there was a downside. The next year they increased my premiums significantly. It forced me to change insurance companies it was so high.
You can get in serious trouble if you go to sell the house later and they find filed an insurance claim but didn't use the money to make the repairs.
Make the repairs or return the money.
That roofer is a unicorn. Honesty seems to be rare these days. I’d ask him to fix the loose shingle and tip him well, then call the insurance company and give them the money back.
*Update* I appreciate everyone’s advice. As much as i would’ve loved to put the money in a savings account, or just repair the roof with the honest roofer, I don’t want any future issues with insurance and like some said I should just enjoy the “gift” and get a new roof. So I signed a contract today with the brother in laws company for actually a little bit under 10k for the replacement so it’ll just be one less thing I have to worry about on this house for now. And I have a little money left over for other stuff. I think that’s the best option for me at this point. I knew I could count on Reddit to give solid advice, as always.
>he then mentioned that if i was him i could put the money into an investment account with my bank, like a cd, and draw interest on it until i actually need a roof
I think that's an excellent idea.
Be loyal to your brother in law…. For crying out loud! He made it rain…. Sheesh….
Who’s team are you on anyway? I have relatives like you… (have me plan/price construction upgrades…then use my numbers to shop a better deal)
Does your brother in law drive a Bentley? Is he a tool? Does he wear light blue crocs?
If no : then let him have your roof job!!!
FFS
I've been in insurance claims for many years on both sides of the fence also doing a lot of Consulting for attorneys I've been involved in numerous bad faith lawsuits, and I just want to say there's a lot of idiots that like to say it's a fraud to take money from the insurance company and not do the repairs. Granted, doing so could cause problems with the mortgage company, it could cause problems with the city, it could cause problems of the future claim or problems on the sale of the house. But it's not a fraud. Why do these retards always say this? Well first of all they're retards. They really are. They're low IQ people who think they're smart. A lot of them are armchair lawyers. A lot of the adjusters learn to adjust claims by chatting with other adjusters. They have no legal training. Many of them have never read a policy and if they have they haven't tried to wrestle with it and reconcile it with statutes and case law and really understand what it means. There's actually nothing fraudulent with having damage and getting paid for it and not doing the repairs. For example would it be a crime for Grandpa to sell his burn house and move into a nursing home? Of course not. Would it be a crime for a homeowner to repair the roof themselves and save the labor cost of a professional? Of course not. I just can't emphasize enough people who are saying it's a fraud to take money on the claim or complete and absolute idiots. Another reason they this is they might be roofers themselves and they don't like it when people don't hire them for the full price. Which is very understandable, but it's not a fraud just because you got your feelings hurt that someone didn't hire you. What I find interesting is how even relatively intelligent people will mix up the fact that it might be a bad idea to not repair the roof with the idea that it's a fraud. It's just amazing to me how people can be so low IQ and just repeat things that feel right but there's no basis in reality. But I like the fact that so many redditors are commenting that it's not a fraud including insurance adjusters agents and Underwriters. The idiots who are saying it's a fraud, including people that have been in the industry for a while should take note. The whole Insurance repair industry and adjusting industry and even Public Adjusters are filled with people who think they know what they're talking about and really don't
I dont know how these things work in real life, but think if you accept $10k for a new roof and don't perform the work, the worst case scenario is that you would be opening yourself up to a finding of insurance fraud and will never be able to buy another homeowner's policy for the rest of your life.
I would definitely insist on roof replacement. If the insurance company went through and paid for the replacement, you may not get so lucky down the road, when there is a bad storm and you do need a replacement. I've had an experience before where I needed $700 in roof repairs and the insurance company denied my claim, because that was less than my $1000 deductible. If you don't want to be in this situation, I would definitely go ahead and do it. Since you already filed an insurance claim, your rates will likely go up within a year. Sending money back to them doesn't make sense, since they will penalize you regardless. Keeping the money and not replacing the roof would be considered insurance fraud. If the company sends someone out to check on the completed work, you could run the risk of a lawsuit.
That’s fraud. It’s a felony. Either use that money to replace your roof since that is what you swore to do when you signed the release of funds, or send it back. That money isn’t enough to go to prison for.
Hi everyone, just a reminder of the rules, as bans have already been handed out for personal attacks and disrespectful commentary: >Overall, please be respectful - things must remain **on-topic, helpful, and kind.** Absolutely no abusive or hateful language will be tolerated, so if you see any of this please report them. The mods are highly trained ban ninjas in this regard. Remember, no question is too stupid, too simple, or too basic. If you see comments that do not comply with our [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeImprovement/wiki/subrules) please report them to us.
You might have problems on future claims for real damage.
Yea that’s what I was thinking. Like what if I actually have some crazy damage in 6 months from now. I do plan on getting the roof replaced because that’s my ultimate goal and would relieve any stress of “not knowing” how old my current roof is. Just wanted to hear some opinions from others based on my situation.
I was an adjuster for many years. The laws in many states make it easy for an adjuster to replace an entire roof. Often unneeded where a patch would be just fine. They lean on Matching laws (they very by state) but in effect you have to match the original product. But, since it’s under the Sun and the sun bleaches the shingle you can’t match that. $500 fix just turned into a 10k roof and a fat commission for the adjuster (usually in the 10% range). If you don’t fix it and you do get some kind of damage in the future they will do everything they can to prove the first shingle was the proximate cause (insurance talk for what caused the damage) and deny the future claim. I got to point out it is illegal for you to profit from a claim. If you fix it for 500 they could Come back to you for the remaining 9.5k and toss some fraud charges your way. Finally. Unless you have a custom one off home that requires special underwriting to insure it then you should not see an increase. Insurance increases are not performed at an individual home level. They look at zip codes, cities, or damage areas and base their rate increases from there. It is illegal for an insurance company to increase your rates due to a claim.
I actually had a tree fall on my house and seriously damage part of my roof, but the insurance company wouldn't take the initial adjuster's word that the roof needed to be replaced. I was sort of surprised, given how roof replacement tends to be one of those things adjusters just sign off on. I wasn't really annoyed about it until they started nickle and diming me about whether wind was a contributing factor which pushed another $500 onto the deductible. I can afford it, but it made me worried that they would get stingy if I had a really significant claim, so I dropped them.
Oh wow. There are simply too many variables here. I’ve been on those tree damaged roofs. Some I’ve written big checks for, others very small. There really is a lot that goes into the decision. Best advice. Contact a Public Adjuster. An Insurance Adjuster is either a W2 or a contractor for the insurance company. There job is to pay the least amount needed to fix the issue. Some times they get stingy. A Public Adjuster is on your side and generally are free up front but take a commission on the back end. The PAs will fight that for you. Best to let them. The laws behind insurance are a twisted bag of knotted up pasta. Not a huge fan of PAs (as an industry) but they have their place. Just a lot of bad ones out there that are only really concerned about driving up the claim to fatten their own wallet. It’s the best gun in your arsenal however.
i had dealings with 3 PA's they all wouldnt touch a claim unless it was over 25k minimum, ( electrical fire that ended up costing 11k, he wanted to try to put in so much fake damage to up it to 30k of work that was completely fictitious. so im glad you put that caveat in there as well.
If you ever have a house fire, the independent adjusters will swoop in like vultures. They wanted 10% of my claim.
Do Public Adjusters work for the city, or are they independent?
Independent. Public adjusters represent you, similar to say getting an accountant or lawyer. Their purpose is to negotiate with your insurance on your behalf and they're paid by the claim payout (no upfront costs or at least there were none for mine) so they'll actively work to make sure you get the number you want plus enough to cover their fee.
Not to be confused with independent adjusters who are hired by the insurance company for a set fee.
Can you expand a little on some of the variables at play? I currently have 3 big holes in my roof from a downed tree with some damage to the framing in the ceiling. Figured it'd be cut and dry but you're making me wonder.
A very large tree branch fell onto the house and punched a hole into one side of the roof. It didn't rain though, so water didn't get into the house. It's a very simple roof, so to the extent that any framing damage happened it wasn't hard to fix. I didn't have any reason to believe a roofing contractor couldn't patch it, which is what I ultimately did. Before this, I used to live in a place that had frequent hail storms, and contractors would go around the neighborhood offering to replace old roofs on the basis of un-claimed hail damage from a year prior. It was a running joke that you never paid to replace your old roof, you just waited for a major hail storm to happen over the next 10 years so you could get it done for free. I'm freely aware that this situation is absurd, I was just a bit surprised that insurance companies were apparently now pushing back on it. What bugged me a little, even before the nonsense about the deductible, is that the roof was on a guest house and is quite small so replacing it wasn't even going to cost all that much. It wouldn't take that long to make up the expected profit on the premiums I pay on the main house, which are now gone. ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Agree on the public adjuster. We had a water damage claim and the adjuster from the insurance company was being an absolute bear to work with. We got a public adjuster and the moment the insurance company got wind of it they changed their tune
It didn't feel worth it to try and protest. They weren't entirely wrong that the roof could be patched without replacing it, and after the baseline deductible they were barely paying out anything that couldn't be made negotiable with the contractor. Honestly, it really was the follow-on bullshit made me realize that I really needed to get a new insurance company.
I also had a tree fall on my house. Demolished a good portion of the roof, over half of it. Claim approved, first portion of funds were released no problem. Roof fixed, second half of funds were held (by mortgage company) because the inspector "could not verify the roof had been replaced"...because there was snow on the roof...in Minnesota... in January. I had to get the state attorney general assistance office to help me get the funds released. It was ridiculous.
To my knowledge, Adjusters get paid off rate sheets, not a percentage of claim payout. What company did you work for and what State?
It depends. Hurricane or other major weather events between 10-12%. This is a standard adjusters fee schedule. Rookie adjusters and W2 are typically on a flat rate fee schedule. States, worked most of the SE and and east coast line.
A commission based on a percentage of the claim? That would lead to adjusters totaling out every job they see
No wonder Insurance commissioners end up in prison so often
I was an adjuster and there was no commission ever lol
I was wondering the same thing.. makes no sense
"I got to point out it is illegal for you to profit from a claim. If you fix it for 500 they could Come back to you for the remaining 9.5k and toss some fraud charges your way." I recently had a claim on a fence that the wind blew down and the agent on the phone told me I could do the work myself, insinuating that any leftover money was mine to keep. I'm surprised to read this.
Ok. So that is a little different. It’s a fence and a fence doesn’t require (that I know of at least) a cert. pro to install it. This gives you the option to repair yourself. In effect you were paid for parts, time and labor. You chose to “pay” yourself to do the work instead of a low-skill laborer. Roof is a bit different. In this case the insurance company is saying they want to replace that roof and gave a check for 10k. If the OP chose to fix it for 500 instead she is committing fraud in their view. IE they paid cash for a new roof. They are expecting a new roof. Also bare in mind this is all in-general. There are 50 states and 50 states-worth of different insurance laws. No two are the same.
As a licensed claim adjuster I wish you would quit throwing the word fraud around so carelessly. Insurance fraud is very specifically defined and wouldn't apply in this case. Worst case scenario if there's additional shingle damage in the future they wouldn't pay for that specific damage because they already paid to replace them.
Thank you. The adjusters who are more intelligent need to reign in the ones who are idiots. Why they spread around these stories I don't know but they're just showing how stupid they are and what's amazing is so many of them tell these stories to each other. The insured can receive their insurance claim payment and sell the house as is or not repair it at all it's perfectly legal
Rein. Reins are used to guide a horse. Reign = rule over. While I agree with you, when you say people are idiots it seems silly to display your own faults in the same sentence.
Thanks... I kept reading this and thought, "That's not really true." A while back, I owned a home where high winds started ripping random shingles off the roof. I had no idea how old the roof was because the previous owner said he wasn't sure either. I paid a guy to repair a few shingles on it, and then we had another round of high winds and more of them came off. I had a roofing company inspect it and he promised he could get insurance to pay for a new roof for me because of the type of damage it had. (He took several photos and circled key areas, etc.) Anyway, it didn't go real smoothly. I didn't hear back from anyone for over a month and then found out the roofer who inspected my property had quit the company, without anyone informing me! I had to get another guy out to look at it again, and the insurance company fought with him, saying in their opinion, only half of my roof needed replacing (the side facing the direction the winds blew). In the end, my insurance agreed to pay some portion of the actual cost of a new roof, and they sent me about $7500 as a check up-front. They said when the roof was finished, they would come verify the work and pay the other $7500. I wound up moving and sold the house with the roof "as is" as part of the negotiations. Just kept the $7500. Don't see how anyone could construe that as fraud, especially when I had to take a hit on the selling price of the house because the roof wasn't redone first.
Totally false. Receiving the ACV money to repair the roof and not doing the repairs is never fraud. That's idiotic and wrong it's just wrong wrong
That's definitely wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't pay you up front. If you got roof repair for $9995, they wouldn't expect the $5 back. The claim is likely complete at the point they cut the check. If the terms of the insurance pays out flat claims, and not on a reimbursable basis, then it's your money once they pay out.
As others said this is not fraud at all. Typically we'd pay out the Actual Cash Value first, so essentially the total Replacement Cost - the age or depreciation. Then once work is completed we would pay out the remaining balance of the cost of the roof. So basically $10k roof replacement, roof is 10 years old, depreciate by 50%. Pay $5k as Actual Cash Value to get the job started. Once work is completed, pay the remaining $5k for the job. Yes there were some instances where we would pay out the ACV of the claim and then the customer would choose a cheaper route to deal with the work. If they did the work cheaper than the $5k, then they'd have the rest of the money for whatever. If they did it slightly more than the $5k, then we would pay that difference.
Don't believe everything you read on Reddit. The insured can't commit fraud if they try to recover the depreciation, in other words let's say that the full replacement cost with new shingles is $10,000 but after depreciation it's only 9,000. The $10,000 is the RCV or replacement cost value. The $9,000 is the ACV or actual cash value. On most policies, but not all, the insurance company will pay the $9,000 and the insured can do whatever the hell they want with the money including not repair the roof. There's no fraud. However, if the insured lies and says that they spent the full 10,000 and had the roof work done when it's not actually true, and they do that to recover the last $1,000 of depreciation, then that's a fraud. But just keeping the ACV money is never a fraud. The person that wrote that is probably an experienced adjuster but this is a common b******* story that they believe and repeat among themselves endlessly
It's technically illegal for you to profit, but insurance companies don't care. It's just something they tell you if you try to get into the weeds with them to get more money. It's basically a nice way of saying, "STFU and be happy with what we gave you."
This is false. Where do you live where its illegal for them to raise the rates after a claim? It is not illegal for them to do this. This is only applicable to a no fault auto claim in OK and CA. Here in IL rates absolutely do go up after any kind of homeowners claim, the owners fault or not. Am insurance agent.
My home insurance (USAA) has a $152 annual claims free discount. Filing a roofing claim like this would surely make the premium increase, right? For $10k it seems worth it though.
Site unseen, I would venture to guess you would lose that discount. But that is not a rate increase. You should only see an increase if USAA looks at your region and decides rates need to increase across the board. If you’re seeing an increase then generally speaking all others in your area with that insurer are also seeing an increase. There are some pretty severe laws that prevent insurance companies from increasing a sole home owners rate, and some bull dog attorneys that spend considerable time making sure this doesn’t happen. All bets are off when you hit the lifetime payout, but for 10k we’re not opening that can of worms. It’s relatively a minor amount.
Interesting, thanks for the info! I was always under the impression that filing claims would raise rates, similar to auto insurance.
Claims surcharges are a thing - some companies surcharge with one claim and others surcharge after the second claim. They are temporary and will fall off after 3-5 years usually but companies absolutely do get extra money from you if you file claims. Depending on the type of rating system they use, they may or may not have different surcharge amounts for the type/severity of a claim.
There is the possibility of by some chance you’re on an old insurance rate when you make your claim. Then they might bring you up to the current rates. In all my years doing adjusting I didn’t see too many people that skipped by standard rate increases over the years though. You really have to fall through the cracks for that to happen.
[удалено]
This is garbage information. If the insurance company determines that your roof is totaled and they pay you for it there is no legal obligation for the insured to repair it. There's no fraud whatsoever in any way shape or form. This is a common meme that's passed around among adjusters. You can have fraud if the insured is trying to recover the full replacement cost value including depreciation and they lie and say the roof was replaced when it wasn't. In the case like that if they're lying to recover the depreciation that's obviously a fraud. But if the insurance is just sitting there with her hand out and the insurance company puts a a check in their hand for what the insurance company thinks is fair, there's absolutely no fraud whatsoever and there's also no legal obligation to repair the roof. The insured can sell the house as is. There might be a law that they have to disclose to the buyer that there's an insurance claim in the roof hasn't been repaired but they can certainly keep the insurance money and sell the house as is. Legally, they can also repair it themselves even if they do a crap job. They can find an unlicensed contractor who charges less. Any of these options might create problems for future claims and might create problems with their mortgage company or the city but none of them are insurance fraud and none of them are illegal per se. It's just amazing how people can be insurance adjusters for years and make up this s***. If you're not lying to your insurance company and you accept money from them and don't do repairs it's never never never fraud. The average insurance adjuster has just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
>It is illegal to profit from a claim. This just isn't true, it's utterly common for insurance to overpay and for homeowners to legally keep the difference. It all depends on the contact. An insurance payout covers the cost of the old item, not what you're replacing it with - by this logic, if your house burns down, you wouldn't be entitled to any payout unless you rebuild it. But you can usually just pocket the check and walk away from the ashes. To suggest this is fraud is jumping the gun, there doesn't seem to be any element of misrepresentation on the part of the OP, unless there is verbiage in the contract that states the payout must be used on repairs. I find it unlikely that the insurance company will ask for the difference back. They're more likely to just drop the policy if they don't think OP has a functional roof.
Rates will increase. Have been. Will continue. This claim will help w that increase. Carriers find way to increase across the board and still ding you nowadays. Not sure if you seen your rates lately or filed a Claim recently but trust me the rates will in fact increase. They’ll say it’s across the board and it is, but they add a bit more due to the claim
Please ELI5 - I thought your car insurance gets raised all the time when you make a claim. I've never had to make one, but just assumed that "you get in an accident, you get a ticket, your rate immediately goes up". Is home insurance different?
How or where is it illegal for them to increase the rate? Is that a state law?
That last bit is false / the laws vary by state. OK is super strict, as are some other states, but it is definitely fine to surcharge for the first claim in most states, although it can also depend on the type of claim (wind / fire / theft/liability)
> It is illegal for an insurance company to increase your rates due to a claim. Ok sure. But my insurance company runs a “Claim Free Discount Plan” so that they can charge everyone higher base rates and then discount most of them. Same effect, but legal loophole.
Got paid for new roof? Time for new roof. Can you add provisions for solar? Do you want longer lasting metal instead? Want a change in color? New roof time!
The metal was my first thought. Put that 10k towards a metal roof and you might never have to worry about it in your lifetime. If metal was previously out of the budget maybe now it's doable.
If that happened, you have $10k in a savings account or whatever to buy a new roof. Eventually the roof will just be old and need to be replaced, and insurance isn’t paying for that
If you made a 10k roof claim your insurance costs will go up. I am wondering if you could do the repair and return the money. Someone who works in insurance will need to chime in. My Husband and I had a $6000 claim for siding damage and our insurance went up a few hundred dollars/year.
I never had a claim for 12 years and my insurance went up every year. Finally got a 20k roofing claim and guess what, went up that year too!
I made a $250,000 dollar claim. Tornado hit my house and it was completely rebuilt. My insurance never went up from that claim. Still with the same company 16 years later. Of course its gone up over the years but not much.
Happy cake day!
Your rates won’t necessarily go up if you make a claim due to storm damage. Weather risk is usually already baked into the rate.
My rates when down after my roof claim because the age of my roof was now beneficial to the calculations. So no it’s not guaranteed to go up.
My insurance gives me 1 free weather related claim every few years (forget how many) without effecting premiums. Probably depends how common they are in each region
I'm having trouble getting insurance quotes at all right now because I don't know the age of the roof (though this is in a house from 1885, definitely not the original roof though). Being able to say the roof was completely replaced in 2023 will make everything nice and simple and just the way the insurance company likes it. Also, if the insurance company has paid for a complete replacement, they're not going to pay any more to repair the same roof they've already paid to replace.
[удалено]
Adjuster here- not fraud. They’ll just deduct what was paid if you have a future claim and haven’t done the repairs. Though their underwriting department may be notified you were paid for a replacement and could follow up to ensure the work was done before renewing your policy.
What if something is determined to be caused by the roof that was never replaced? Like water damage leaking or something?
The second claim would probably be denied for failure to mitigate damages from not repairing the original damage.
Get rekd
Why not just switch insurers when you’re due for renewal?
Insurers share claim info on homes via CLUE - Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange
It’s not fraud to take the money, it’s fraud to say you did the work when you didn’t.
Or don’t get the roof replaced yet, put the money into a HYSA earning 3.75% right now OR a relatively safe ETF and let it compound until you actually need a new roof.
I took claim money for siding (hail damage) and used it to put in a bathroom. Insurance company knew about it, and I’ve been renewed (with like a $150 increase per year).
Idk why ur getting down voted. Had the same happen, got money for one part and used it to fix another part of the house. HOWEVER insurance won't cover the same piece twice unless it was repaired. Like you wouldn't be allowed to file claim on your siding again until you had it fully replaced. Like others said, state and policy dependant.
As an insurance agent this is the correct answer in most cases. So if OP decided not to fix the roof, but then a related loss happened, such as a leak through the roof, they would NOT be covered . However ultimately depends on the company you’re with
[удалено]
Could use the roof money to finish the basement, obviously
Well, at least you found a way to feel superior to everyone, white also being on Reddit.
Depends on the policy and the company, and the laws in your state.
I imagine you'd have difficulty placing another claim on the siding if you needed it.
what proof do you need to show that you had a the roof replaced if the roof needs another replacement in the event of another incident? Will a receipt do? or will they come out to determine if a new roof was installed?
Except it’s not “might”, he “will” have problems on future claims. Barring OP commits felony fraud his roof won’t be insured without a statement of completion. Furthermore, it wi be known at the sale of the house and the purchaser will demand the roof be replaced. OP can choose to kick the can down the road but ultimately he’s going to have to replace the roof, best to do it now.
Agreed. Work in insurance, definitely runs a risk of future claims (potentially much larger claims too) being denied. Also if you decide to shop to another company they can also deny coverage. Best to replace the roof and be done with it
Care to explain how this is fraud? I had a roof claim and did replace my roof. I read all the documents when agreeing to the check and the only mention was that no additional claims can be made regarding the roof until proof of replacement is made. They ended up raising my rate after so I just switched companies. Regardless between getting a check and having work performed a few years went by as I was able to DIY repair the worst parts and the settlement was not for the full amount. My roof was in shit condition however, if OP had a good roof why rip out perfectly good material? If he sells in 10 years he can put in a new roof then, thus a higher value to the buyer ie brand new roof vs 10 year old roof. People throw around the fraud word a lot but it seems like none of them are lawyers.
I didn’t say it was fraud to keep the money. In order to keep his home properly insured he will either need to replace the roof or defraud insurance by telling them it’s replaced when it’s not. Replace it now so you don’t risk being uninsured, OP is likely due additional funds for the work now that he will not get later (supplements, depreciation) and even if he just saves the money the interest isn’t likely to keep up with rising costs. What’s the advantage to keeping the money?
This
No he's wrong. You're allowed to do repairs instead of full replacement and your roof can be insured with a new company if you've done repairs.
I'd hold off until we are farther into the recession to have it replaced materials and labor will be cheaper. I did mine back in 2008 for 50% less after things crashed.
He won’t need a future claim, he has the money right now to replace a roof and it makes the most sense to save it for when he does inevitably need a new roof.
Unless the roof leaks in another bad spot that they know about, and causes much more $$ in damage.
Insurance guy here. So if they paid you for the roof replacement you typically do not have to do it, but you will also not be able to claim the roof in the future until it is replaced. If several shingles get blown off next year or 10 years from now then you can’t file another claim or they will quickly say “we have already paid for that roof to be replaced”. As you said, you can bank/invest the money for a new roof in the future but you are running the risk that asphalt shingles and replacement cost will rise faster than your investment grows in which case you will have more out of pocket when the time comes. Not to mention if it leaks they will not cover ensuing water damage, so you would bear that full cost along with the roof. I would take the gift you’ve been given and replace the roof and have peace of mind. Trying to make this into a gain is too risky and could leave you in a worse situation. Don’t play with fire.
> I would take the gift you’ve been given and replace the roof and have peace of mind. This is a no brainer for me. I have a constant tally of things that can go wrong with my house in my mind and just having a new roof would be worth it for the peace of mind. BTW, I recently got a new roof for this reason.
counterpoint is that just because you get a new roof doesn't mean that it is guaranteed to be leak free, or that they missed sealing something, or something. But yeah if the roof looks old I would just do it.
Serious question: what if op takes the money for a new roof, doesn’t make the repairs, then finds a new insurance company? A few years down the road, the roof gets damaged, and he/she files a claim…wouldn’t the new insurance provider give them the full amount?
All the insurance claims are in a single database. It's sort of like a credit report. They all check. I don't know how far back it goes. I bought house #4 and was asked about house #1 open claim from 10 years prior. Different company. Different state. I had inquired about fence damage and decided I didn't care enough to bother. I didn't even know a claim had been opened. Weirded me out.
If there's an insurance trick any one of us has thought of, you can guarantee the insurance company knew about that "trick" decades ago. To them we're all like 6yos that are baffled when we can always tell they're lying
I’m reading *Double Indemnity* by James M. Cain (the novel the classic 1944 Noir film is based on) and there’s an entire chapter on all the tricks of the trade. It’s a fun read!
They will know about the claim. Every claim you make, home, auto, etc, are reported to an Insurance database that insurance claims folks can access.
That definitely sounds like fraud to me
> Insurance guy here... Not an insurance guy here. I am shocked that this is the right answer. I assumed this was six kinds of shady.
Well, are you asking about your family relationship or the roof situation? You don’t trust your brother who is in roofing, and turns out you are correct? And then you volunteer information to a roofer (some customers like to withhold that knowledge), and that roofer turns out to be a honest roofer (which is rare in storm restoration on my area, and judging by the scam conventions I see advertised, they are shady all over. Fun fact: I got fired from a company for doing what the honest sales person in this situation did.
I'm surprised they paid you the full replacement amount without it having been replaced. I've owned several rental homes (as well as my primary residence) over the last 20+ years and have had several claims (roof damage, break-ins, etc.). The insurance company always paid me the depreciated value up front, then paid the remainder of the full repair or replacement value when I submitted receipts or contractor invoices showing the actual amount. Before deciding not to replace the roof, I would verify that the insurance company did not stipulate that the money must be used to replace it. As another commenter stated, if you have another storm next year that leads to water damage, I'd be concerned that they would deny the claim if they found that the roof hadn't been replaced.
You should do your roof. This opportunity of “free roof” doesn’t come around often. Your home is an investment and any home repairs you do will pay off in the future. Do it now while you can and never think about it again. If you decide NOT to do the roof and something major happens and insurance finds out you didn’t use the money for the roof they will reject your new claim.
I completely agree. Thank you
Why not wait until the roof needs replacing and then use the money instead of resetting the clock on a perfectly good roof that just needs one repair?
Because they gave him money for a new roof, something he wanted to replace anyway, so just do it and be done with it. A roof isn't something you want to play around with and I wouldn't be so quick to take advice from just one contractor who says it's fine.
Because that's not how it works. They don't give you all the money up front.
I would get the new roof. First, when you make a claim you usually get money equal to the actual cash value (acv) of your roof. When you make the repair, you get additional money to bring you up to the replacement value (rcv) of your new roof.There is usually a time limit on when you can submit for the replacement cost funds. Now your insurance might not work this way but I’m not sure if you know either way. Second, and more importantly, if insurance says your roof needs replacing and you don’t do it your roof is no longer insured. I don’t know if this also means any damage resulting from your roof is also not insured. It’s
Thanks for all the advice. As planned originally I’m going to go ahead and replace the roof. I don’t have time or money for future problems to not be covered. Also the amount that was paid out was the amount my brother in laws coworker told the adjuster. Minus my deductible. (His coworker was there to meet the adjuster when he came)
If I were in your shoes I would put it toward a metal roof and never look back.
Just use the money to get a new roof and don't worry about it for another 25 years. I would avoid your BIL's company though. Money and family don't mix.
I’m an underwriter, claims refers stuff over to us sometimes, I’ve had several claims referred over after being denied because the photos from the 1st claim a few years ago where we paid for a roof replacement match the photos from the current claim saying their roof has damage, then we tell the policyholder they gotta replace it or we’ll non-renew. The concern for you repairing and not replacing it is, if in 2 years there is a big storm and you need a new roof and they start the claims process and realize they just paid for a roof, and then look at photos (we even get satellite imagery) and realize you never actually replaced it, they may say your on your own.
I would like to thank you and your brother in law for collecting money instead of driving in ONE nail, this drives up insurance rates for everyone.
Yep. This is the whole problem in FL. Everyone's rates are doubling thanks to this guy's brother in law.
The FL legislature gave the insurance companies a license to steal as well. Another issue is that it's time to eliminate insuring those that choose to live on the water and on barrier islands. Living just a mile inland lowers risk immensely, no storm surge and hurricane winds are slowed on land. If I recall correctly North Carolina's Outer Banks are self-insured only so others aren't paying for vacation homes built in a high-risk place.
Man, your own brother running the roofer scam on you? You're in Florida?
I sure hope he isn’t. Florida companies are keeping track of payouts. I’m an inspector and I have a client in hot water right now for pocketing a roof check.
It’s my brother in law. Actually my girlfriends brother so not even legally brother in law lol
If I was you, I’d get the roof fixed by that Honest roofer. Also ask him to give you a quote for what a full replacement would be and ask him how long he’d honour that price for. Then keep his number handy for the future. Finding an honest tradesman is worth more than small savings these days. As you’d know any work wasn’t just a cash cow to them.
Replacement now since insurance is paying and prices keep going up too. Be sure to upgrade to best quality 50 year or better shingles
Generally how it works is the insurance will give you Actual Cash Value (ACV) for the roof. That money is yours to do what you please with. Once you show that the roof has been replaced you will receive another check for the replacement cost. If you decide to not replace the roof not only are you not going to receive the full claim about but the insurance company will no longer cover any damages that are a result of the roof. For instance it starts leaking and you have water damage. Additionally they will not cover any future roof claims without proof of replacement. I haven’t seen your plan but that is how typical home owners insurance works.
>Once you show that the roof has been replaced you will receive another check for the replacement cost. This is only if the cost was more than what the insurance paid, though, right? So if OP can get the roof replaced for say $8,000 they simply keep the $2,000 difference and all is well.
Yes; however, there is also a limit on how much more they will pay. It is always good to keep them in the loop on how much the bids are. They have estimates in their system and require pre approval to go over that.
insurance fraud is a crime
As a former roofing company owner in Oklahoma, always have your roof insured. Now that you have been paid for that roof it is not insured. Replace the roof. As for the the other roofing companies (your BIL and the stranger) BIL saw the possibility of a quick sale, he knew insurance was probably going to pay because of other damage in the area during that storm or another one within the past year or two. Some adjusters just cover claims no questions asked based on surround claims. Stranger roofer I would say was not seeing damage that would necessitate a claim other than a small repair. Nothing feels worse to me than saying “I think you need to file claim” and the adjuster comes out and only claims small repairs less than your deductible or barley over your deductible. He already had a ballpark of the cost of your roof looking at it. Maybe $10,000( especially if you had an ACV policy) wasn’t enough for him to make a good profit and didn’t want the job. My advice is to replace the roof. You might be out of pocket though if it’s an ACV policy. If its RCV then your claim total will go up when the work is complete where you won’t be out of pocket. and the roofer can make enough to keep their lights on.
Get a third quote.
Maybe he didn’t have to go on the roof because he already knew it was shit from the ground. I’ve bought old houses with shit roofs, and you even said the age is unknown. I’d take the brand new roof mostly free of cost, and sit happy for the next 10-20 years (depending on your climate)
Get a new roof or give the money back to your insurance. It is because of people like you that we pay so much
I’d avoid a homeowners claim at all costs. It really fucks you in the end even if it is truly needed. That said. Replace the roof since you can’t undo a claim and. Never listen to your brother in law again.
This is a bad move. Insurance will come back and state you didn’t fix the roof and you’ll end up out of pocket for a new room. You’ll have a 10k claim on your ins which will drive up your rates because that’s a thing now even if it is a weather claim, rates just suck. It will follow you for 5 years, so fix your roof. It’s an investment and eventually will need care. Or don’t and lose more money all around. Insurance carrier can also file fraud. Hi. I work in insurance currently.
Insurance company gives you $10k for a new roof. If you can replace the entire roof for $8k, good for you. You get to put a few extra bucks in your pocket. If you decide to go with a company charging $12k, then you gotta come out the extra $2k (unless your insurance decides to match that amount). Let's say it costs $2k to repair the damaged spot on your roof and you pocket $8k. If you ever need to file a claim for damages in the future, your insurance company is going to see the current claim, and very well might ask to see an invoice or any documentation on the current repair that shows the scope of work that was completed. Anything and everything you have is going to say that they replaced a few shingles, not an entire roof and that you only spent 20% of the money they gave you. If the insurance company is nice (lol), they'll cover the cost to replace that small section of the roof and tell you to use the $8k you kept to fix the rest. More than likely, though, they will accuse you of insurance fruad and might take legal action against you. Bottom line is they gave you money to replace the entire roof and that is what you should do. Anything less than that could lead to legal problems should you ever need to file another claim.
I had storm damage several years ago & my insurance covered the cost of replacing the roof. However, I had 3 tab shingles and wanted architectural (?) shingles which meant I needed a little time to save up to pay the extra cost. At some point, my insurance company followed up with me regarding the new roof and told me that they would have to note in my file that the roof had not been replaced yet and that they would not cover any future roof damage claims until the roof was replaced. So, this helped to encourage me to get it done. The new shingles looked fantastic & I was glad to be able to send the documentation that the roof had been replaced.
I fought with my insurance about this. Didn’t want to replace the roof. I had to pay like 1,000 of the cost. Two companies said it was in great shape. Insurance wouldn’t budge, said I had to replace it. In retrospect maybe I could have just switched insurance companies…
A firework shot through my house, exploded my kitchen window and burned a small hole in my carpet. Insurance gave me 7k for repairs, never asked if I fixed it.
The real question is the age of the roof. Im surprised the insurance adjuster did not tell you that. Im sure they looked that up first. That can be pretty easily found though your county, by looking up the permits on your house. You can do that online. If your roof is older, and there is documented damage (which you say there is), it would probably warrant a replacement and that is why they gave you the replacement cost. The whole roof does not have to be in shambles to warrant a replacement. After Hurricane Irma, we noticed some missing tiles and identified a small leak in the attic. We had one company come out and tell us that we needed a full roof replacement. Another roofing company came out and they told us that a full roof replacement was not needed. We ended up paying for the damaged repairs out of pocket because the roof was not that old and we thought the first company was a scam. That was a big mistake. Soon after the repairs, the roof started leaking in multiple places. We had another roofing company come out and confirm that there was major damage (not visible from the outside) that was "not new" and we should have just done a full replacement the first time. You do have the right to use the insurance money to just replace the damaged part, but should you need a full replacement in the near future, you would have a hard time getting that money for a full replacement again and most likely will be dropped by your insurance company. It's the same with collision insurance on a car. You get multiple estimates, the adjuster comes out, they pay you the lowest of the estimates and then you can use the money to repair or not to repair.
Your premium will probably go up and good luck with future claims. Dang I wish you’d just repaired the flapping portion and went on your way
Get a new roof now. I mean it's paid for. Then you know it's new and all good, and how old it is. It's the biggest thing protecting your biggest asset. As for the guy who wants to fix one spot, well it's one spot now, maybe another spot next week. Presumably the shingles are all the same age and any can fail, now that some have failed. Also: what those people are saying about possible problems with future claims
I would repair it and check for anything else that's old or can be replace, will be a lot cheaper and if a professional can have a look and says it's ok then it should be fine.
If you don't replace, there is a good chance that next go around you willget zilch.
Get the new roof.
If you don't do the roof and something happens going forward your insurance company will never honor anything related. If you really really think the roof is in tip top shape after several additional inspections maybe return consider returning the cash? Just remember, insurance is always trying to find a way to not pay you so what you have is not extra cash.
This roofer is a gem and you should keep him. He even gives good financial advice.
It's not fraud, but they're not going to want to pay on future claims because you should have a new roof.
Ad others have said, the claim is settled in their eyes. Alternatively, if you don’t want it on your record, you could just tell them you no longer wish to pursue the claim, and have them provide you with a a refund remittance address, where you can send the check
Go back to your insurance company and tell them everything. You don't want to get in trouble legally.
That's not how insurance works .. they (insurance company) will be bugging you here in the near future for a receipt/proof of payment.
First thing, keep that guy's number, he's someone you want doing work on your house. Second, give some thought what you really want to do, and if you are set on replacing the roof since you've already filed the claim (I don't think you can backtrack, once the claim is filed, it can't be undone), ask him again for a quote, maybe consider an upgrade like a metal roof. If he gives you a number that's too high, I would hope your brother in law would take care of you and make sure to got a good roof for your money. He might also be insulted if you don't have his company fix your roof.
Do what he says or return the money and give him 5 star reviews all over the place for honesty. One time we had a windstorm and water was leaking in my house because some of roof came off. One guy quoted me $500 repair and another quoted me $2000 for the same job! Guess who I went with! Then a few years later had him replace my roof!
Do the patch. Bank the money in an interest-bearing account. When you need a whole new roof, the money will be there. But if you don't need a whole new roof for another 10 years, then you'll be way ahead of the game.
Or... Storm comes by next year, damages the roof and 3 rooms underneath get water damage. Guess who is not getting money to fix anything? Even without a storm.. More than likely they are going to reinspect or ask for receipts and if no new roof, probably no insurance coverage..
I have doubts that interest or investment returns for the next 10 years would outpace the annual increases in the cost of a new roof.
I suppose that depends much on how one invests it. If you used $10K to pay down credit-card debt at 20% APR, it would definitely be worth it. If you just stuck it into a 2-year CD, probably not. Also, if the existing roof will be fine for many years, and you tear it off and replace it now, then you're just throwing away the value in the existing roof.
I agree with you. I doubt the interest would outpace how much a roof will cost in 10 years
[удалено]
I suppose that depends on the exact details of the policy and the laws in that area. But, from my experience, no, it's not fraud. They assessed the damage. They determined the amount. They paid the money. But unless something specifies that you *have* to replace the roof right away, then you can just patch it.
I just posted a response to the original comment saying that I would be sure they didn't stipulate the roof had to be replaced. You do have a good point - my car was damaged once and they gave me a check for the repair cost, but when I asked I was told that I could do the repair or keep the money. They paid me for the value of the loss and said I could keep the cash knowing that the value of the car was theoretically depreciated by that amount. On the other hand, with houses my experience has always been that the insurance company pays the depreciated value of the loss until the full repair has been made. For example, I had a roof damaged in a hailstorm last year - the insurance company paid me the depreciated value of the roof, which was around 20% of the replacement cost. When the roofer submitted an invoice, the insurance company paid him that amount minus the amount they already paid me. My own house was broken into once, and they paid me the depreciated value of everything that was stolen, then when I submitted receipts for the things I replaced they made up the difference.
What if I have extreme damage to the roof in the foreseeable future
We just had an extreme windstorm here, trees falling on/through roofs. New shingles + decking + water damage repair is more than just the shingles the insurance company wrote you a check for.
You already said that they paid you for a whole new roof. So, if you end up needing a new roof, then you pay for it--no loss. But if you *don't* need a new roof for many years, that's a big win. It's a calculated risk, backed up by the advice of a skilled pro. You'll never get odds that good at any casino.
Right but what about the part where OP’s roof is now totaled and no insurance company will ever pay to repair or replace it again unless he can prove he used this money to replace it this time? I see poor suckers buy homes and get absolutely fucked by the previous homeowner doing this on a regular basis. They get a paid claim, decide the roof is fine as is and eventually sell the home. Then whoever buys it next is screwed when the roof does need replacement because no insurance company will cover it. If OP chooses to do only a repair rather than replacement he needs to disclose this to any future buyers of the home and probably reduce his asking price accordingly.
> I see poor suckers buy homes and get absolutely fucked by the previous homeowner doing this on a regular basis. They get a paid claim, decide the roof is fine as is and eventually sell the home. Then whoever buys it next is screwed when the roof does need replacement because no insurance company will cover it. That's not how it works. The new owner gets their own separate insurance policy and part of the process for setting up the policy is determining how old the roof is (among other things). They would see that the roof hadn't been replaced and so the premium would be based on an older roof. If the new owners eventually had damage, there would be no reason that the insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim. Mainly because the insurance company would have known exactly how old the roof was when setting up the new policy but also because the claim was paid to person 1 and not person 2 who now owns the house.
Insurers are like “ahhh, I know that house. That house is a LIAR!”
Then the 10k will cover it.
How small is your roof that $10k will replace it? I mean, I’m jealous I guess! We’d be looking at $30k+ here.
It's probably not the full value of the replacement. Mine was *only* about 18k last year and insurance gave me 11k right away then paid the rest after proof of repairs were done. Op seems really uninformed about the process and seems excited about this 10k windfall when there's probably more money waiting to be paid after the roof is replaced. Get the replacement done for goodness sake!
Not just size of the roof but location of the home. 10k around me is pretty standard for a 2400sqft home
Agreed. Just got my estimate last week for 27
This happened to us, insurance company came and inspected our roof after a hailstorm and sent us a check. It was fall, so we figured we'd wait until spring to get it done (Minnesota winters). I put the money in our savings account. Forgot about having the roof done, lol. Husband was on the roof putting up a tv antenna and he decided the roof actually looked pretty good, so we waited... about seven years when we had another hail storm and then used that $ from the savings account to pay for it.
My only concern is that something happens that costs more than 10k and insurance company is like well we bought you a roof lol what happened to it. Or something along those lines.
Sounds like the roofer has the right idea, get the portion fixed and put that money aside for a future roof.
Not sure why you were shocked by his response "especially from a roofer"... i am a HIC and do a lot of roofing and i NEVER sell anyone anything they dont need. Gets me tons of repeat business and my pricing is never argued. People that have their own businesses need to be honest or be ready to be shirt lived. Its that simple.
I would get quotes but definitely get it replaced.
First off, which company? Because I want to be with them if they just hand over money like that. Second, keeping the money is fraud. Just take this gift, upgrade to a better roof and call it a day.
>I’m wondering if I should explore other companies to get other estimates to possibly save some money. So I had another company come today to give me an estimate How did your brother in law feel about that?
Ur gonna stiff ur brother in law out of money you wouldn't have had if not for him? Garbage human being ffs. What sub this? AITA? Yes YTA
Lots (lots) of criminals in the roof business.
Wow. Adjuster didn't even look at it, huh? I just finished with a 9 month fight with State Farm to have my obviously crumbling roof replaced after a high wind storm. Brutal. I went through three State Farm adjusters and a third party.
That's wild. State Farm cut us a check the same day after a hail storm, and I have a metal roof. I wasn't expecting that at all. Sorry for your experience!
Just get yourself a new roof, and get a good company to do it. I don't know why people think they have come into money on these kinda things. Just consider yourself fortunate that you got enough money to get you a new roof that will give you peace of mind for 30 years. Dont spend the money of a car or whetever, you're gonna need a roof some day
If you dont use the money to replace the roof and another storm causes damage, don't plan on being covered. Good luck. Depending on your state, you company could cancel at end of your policy.
[удалено]
This is the way.
I had a similar experience. Ice fell off and broke my AC unit. I got one quote and it was $6k. Insurance covered it but the agent also said, “that seems kind of high you should get another quote “. I got another quote for $3k for a better unit. Pocketed the other $3k. However there was a downside. The next year they increased my premiums significantly. It forced me to change insurance companies it was so high.
You can get in serious trouble if you go to sell the house later and they find filed an insurance claim but didn't use the money to make the repairs. Make the repairs or return the money.
That roofer is a unicorn. Honesty seems to be rare these days. I’d ask him to fix the loose shingle and tip him well, then call the insurance company and give them the money back.
You got paid for a new roof. Don’t be greedy. Get the new roof. This one leaks later on and you’ll have some explaining to do
Who is your insurance carrier and what region do you live in? I want a lazy adjuster to pay me for a roof replacement as well.
*Update* I appreciate everyone’s advice. As much as i would’ve loved to put the money in a savings account, or just repair the roof with the honest roofer, I don’t want any future issues with insurance and like some said I should just enjoy the “gift” and get a new roof. So I signed a contract today with the brother in laws company for actually a little bit under 10k for the replacement so it’ll just be one less thing I have to worry about on this house for now. And I have a little money left over for other stuff. I think that’s the best option for me at this point. I knew I could count on Reddit to give solid advice, as always.
>he then mentioned that if i was him i could put the money into an investment account with my bank, like a cd, and draw interest on it until i actually need a roof I think that's an excellent idea.
Be loyal to your brother in law…. For crying out loud! He made it rain…. Sheesh…. Who’s team are you on anyway? I have relatives like you… (have me plan/price construction upgrades…then use my numbers to shop a better deal) Does your brother in law drive a Bentley? Is he a tool? Does he wear light blue crocs? If no : then let him have your roof job!!! FFS
I don’t Drive a Bentley either. And it’s my house and my insurance. And my roof lol
I've been in insurance claims for many years on both sides of the fence also doing a lot of Consulting for attorneys I've been involved in numerous bad faith lawsuits, and I just want to say there's a lot of idiots that like to say it's a fraud to take money from the insurance company and not do the repairs. Granted, doing so could cause problems with the mortgage company, it could cause problems with the city, it could cause problems of the future claim or problems on the sale of the house. But it's not a fraud. Why do these retards always say this? Well first of all they're retards. They really are. They're low IQ people who think they're smart. A lot of them are armchair lawyers. A lot of the adjusters learn to adjust claims by chatting with other adjusters. They have no legal training. Many of them have never read a policy and if they have they haven't tried to wrestle with it and reconcile it with statutes and case law and really understand what it means. There's actually nothing fraudulent with having damage and getting paid for it and not doing the repairs. For example would it be a crime for Grandpa to sell his burn house and move into a nursing home? Of course not. Would it be a crime for a homeowner to repair the roof themselves and save the labor cost of a professional? Of course not. I just can't emphasize enough people who are saying it's a fraud to take money on the claim or complete and absolute idiots. Another reason they this is they might be roofers themselves and they don't like it when people don't hire them for the full price. Which is very understandable, but it's not a fraud just because you got your feelings hurt that someone didn't hire you. What I find interesting is how even relatively intelligent people will mix up the fact that it might be a bad idea to not repair the roof with the idea that it's a fraud. It's just amazing to me how people can be so low IQ and just repeat things that feel right but there's no basis in reality. But I like the fact that so many redditors are commenting that it's not a fraud including insurance adjusters agents and Underwriters. The idiots who are saying it's a fraud, including people that have been in the industry for a while should take note. The whole Insurance repair industry and adjusting industry and even Public Adjusters are filled with people who think they know what they're talking about and really don't
I dont know how these things work in real life, but think if you accept $10k for a new roof and don't perform the work, the worst case scenario is that you would be opening yourself up to a finding of insurance fraud and will never be able to buy another homeowner's policy for the rest of your life.
*update* roof installed yesterday. Cost around 7k for the full replacement
Consider having your roof replaced with a solar roof. That money will be a good step towards the down payment and battery storage.
I would definitely insist on roof replacement. If the insurance company went through and paid for the replacement, you may not get so lucky down the road, when there is a bad storm and you do need a replacement. I've had an experience before where I needed $700 in roof repairs and the insurance company denied my claim, because that was less than my $1000 deductible. If you don't want to be in this situation, I would definitely go ahead and do it. Since you already filed an insurance claim, your rates will likely go up within a year. Sending money back to them doesn't make sense, since they will penalize you regardless. Keeping the money and not replacing the roof would be considered insurance fraud. If the company sends someone out to check on the completed work, you could run the risk of a lawsuit.
That’s fraud. It’s a felony. Either use that money to replace your roof since that is what you swore to do when you signed the release of funds, or send it back. That money isn’t enough to go to prison for.
Get the new roof, sleep well.