| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:02 pm Post subject: Does insurance have the right to only fix part of your roof |
|
|
| A tree limb landed on my roof, State Farm only wants to replace or fix part of my roof, about 1/3 of it and leave the rest alone. This would cause part of the roof to be new and the rest to be old and outdated. Anything I can do? I've had a second adjustor come out and they pulled the good cop/bad cop saying the first one gave too much and the last one only would have replaced a few shingles. Am I getting the run around? Or am I basically screwed. |
|
W
New member
Joined: 13 Nov 2008
Posts: 1
1.83 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing you can do. They only owe to repair the damage portion... not to fix the rest because it's old. You as the owner of the home are responsible for the _upkeep_ of the home.
Why would you be screwed? Your getting something better then you had before the loss. Before the loss the _whole_ roof was old. Now only 2/3 of it is old. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5063
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
272.29 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Insurance is there to put you back to where you were before the incident. There is only part of the roof that is damaged. That is the part that will be repaired.
If you back into a pole and dented your bumper, would insurance fix the bumper or buy you a new car?
_________________
Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. - Ferris Bueller |
|
LifeIsGood
Senior member
Joined: 22 Sep 2008
Posts: 580
1.29 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Anything I can do? |
Nope.... | Quote: | | Am I getting the run around? |
Nope.... | Quote: | | Or am I basically screwed. |
Only if you chose to view it that way....which incidently is wrong..the second adjuster was probably right, and they first one likely did over pay it...AND they can change their minds....
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Got an idea that I've seen used in these instances more than once, and there's nothing illegal, immoral or wrong with it.
Hook up with the roofer and ask him for an estimate on how much extra it would cost for the tear-off of the old shingles on the rest of the house and then to simply re-shingle the entire structure? You can probably strike a deal with the contractor...he's already at the house with his crew and equipment.
Just a thought. If you can afford the difference in price and you can negotiate a good deal with the contractor, why not? The value of the home has just improved immediately, and you've done nothing wrong.
Even though we don't like people to "profit" from an insurance claim, there's another way to look at it. Even if the contractor charges you full-bore for the additional materials and labor (which he won't if you are aggresive in your negotiations), you get a complete new roof down to the paper for pennies on the dollar. If 1/3 of the roof is going to be paid for by the insurer, replacing the whole thing, at worst, would cost you $.66 on the buck. Think of it as 33% off! Not a bad deal.
InsTeacher  |
|
InsTeacher
Moderator
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1331
Location: Oregon, USA
118.58 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | State Farm only wants to replace or fix part of my roof, about 1/3 of it and leave the rest alone. This would cause part of the roof to be new and the rest to be old and outdated. Anything I can do? |
Nothing can be done since there isn't any damage occurred to the entire roof. if you would have read the policy document carefully you may have know that the insurer isn't responsible for fixing the entire roof when only a portion of it was damaged.
| Quote: | | Am I getting the run around? Or am I basically screwed. |
IMO you're neither. You'll only receive what's due and its wrong to demand more than that. I hope you have got the answer from the other members as well. so, get your roof repaired and don't expect more than what you deserve.
Regards,
Juanita |
|
Juanita
Moderator
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 735
Location: Idaho
137.01 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can see a requirement of being made whole as insisting the roof from one side or view all match. If you have a north slope that can not be seen when you view the damaged south slope I can see an insurer refusing to pay for that if it isn't damaged.
Afterall a replacement policy promises to put you back to where you were prior to the loss and they obviously don't sell and install 10 year old shingles. You didn't have a mismatched roof prior to the loss.
No different than an auto insurer being required to blend an adjacent panel for a color match on a collision loss. That panel wasn't damaged was it? And as a requirement of being made whole on an acv policy the insurer pays for the colormatch.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Joe Homeowner
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Afterall a replacement policy promises to put you back to where you were prior to the loss and they obviously don't sell and install 10 year old shingles. You didn't have a mismatched roof prior to the loss. |
What your mentioning is actually a AVC policy, not replacement cost. A RCV policy almost always puts the person in a better situation then they were prior to the loss. But this does not come into play here as it was a repair.
You have a good point but only if the new shingles detract from the value of the home. Making this argument for a shingled roof is going to be an uphill battle. In the matter of a year or two, the shingles are going to pretty much match. Also, would the home sell for less if all the shingles did not match? I tend to doubt it. Now if the roof was tile and the color did not match, I could see this being an easier argument. But shingles are damaged all the time and small sections or single shingles need to be replaced all the time on homes. I don't see this as lowering the value of the home. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5063
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
272.29 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:48 pm Post subject: Roof Repair vs Made Whole |
|
|
If the insured's roof looks different after the repair than it did before the repair then they have not been made whole. The insurer owes them the difference in the value of the roof before the damage and the repaired damage since no one will give the insured the same purchase price for a house that has a mis-matched roof.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
anonymous-100
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If the insured's roof looks different after the repair than it did before the repair then they have not been made whole. The insurer owes them the difference in the value of the roof before the damage and the repaired damage since no one will give the insured the same purchase price for a house that has a mis-matched roof. |
Repairing the damage, whether the color of the roof matches or not, is the only INDEMNIFICATION required under a contract of insurance. That's what makes the insured whole -- you had a solid, intact roof . . . it was damaged . . . now it's fixed (properly, of course) and you once again have a solid, intact roof. There is no other standard, not the least of which is color matching. 10 year old shingles will look different than new ones. If the property owner is THAT concerned about color matching, then the property owner can pay the cost of replacing the undamaged, older, color mismatched shingles.
There is no requirement of law that says new shingles have to match the color of old shingles, or all the old shingles have to be replaced.
since no one will give the insured the same purchase price for a house that has a mis-matched roof.
This is not the insurance company's responsibility. If the decline in value is due to poor workmanship, that's a different story.
Think of it this way. What if the roof damage was not caused by an insurable event (as in worn out shingles that did not survive the 30-year warranty period)? Whose responsibility is the repair? Who chooses how many shingles to replace? The shingle manufacturer's warranty says we will replace the "defective material with new material of like kind and quality." It does not say, in addition, "and of the exact same color." And it certainly does not promise an entire new roof simply because a few shingles "died" too soon.
Your theory is faulty.
_________________
California-licensed Property & Casualty Broker-Agent and Life & Health Agent. CA Insurance License #0596197. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. I live, breathe, and teach insurance! |
|
MaxHerr
Moderator
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 4218
Location: Pomona CA
162.55 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: Mis-match shingles |
|
|
There is a claus in your homeowners policy that deals with indirect damage. Don't let the adjuster tell you it only pertains to personal property nowhere in the policy does it say that. It would be an indirect loss sustained because of the diminished value of your property.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
Home owner
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Indirect damage and diminished value are not the same things. Indirect damage means "consequential loss" and includes things such as "loss of use" -- a period of time that the homeowner cannot enjoy the benefit of the home due to a direct, insured loss, such as following a fire or flood.
You do not find the words "diminished value" in a typical homeowner's policy, although you do find words such as "pair and set" which recognizes that the loss of one earring, for example has a greater effect than just a 50% reduction in value.
You might find words relating to "cosmetic damage" which could include a mismatch in color on a roof when 50% or more of the shingles required replacement. But, as tcope has stated above, a recovery under that theory is far less likely when a composite material such as fiberglass shingles is involved than when a solid roofing material such as clay or concrete tile or metal is involved. Even a copper roof, the older portion of which has probably developed its characteristic patina, when first repaired with new copper, will not "match" visually, but given a year or two, the patinas will very closely match. New sections of painted metal roofing material will weather and closely match older portions in about the same time period.
California's Fair Claims Reporting Act states, in part:
| Quote: |
Section 2695.9. Additional Standards Applicable to First Party Residential and Commercial Property Insurance Policies
(a) When a residential or commercial property insurance policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first party losses based on replacement cost, the following standards apply:
(1) When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any consequential physical damage incurred in making the repair or replacement not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be included in the loss. The insured shall not have to pay for depreciation nor any other cost
except for the applicable deductible.
(2) When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance. |
(emphasis added)
Notice the words "in the damaged area". This does not say "in the damaged and adjacent areas". So unless there was a genuinely provable loss in value due to a color variation in the roofing materials, a claim for this would likely fail.
There are some roofs that have coverings that are no longer available, and cannot possibly be matched. I'm thinking specifically of some older homes, especially some of the Victorian-style dwellings. When a portion of such a roof is not going to be repairable with the same style and color of shingle, the insurer will pay to replace all. At best, you might be able to get the insurance company to agree to replace the other undamaged portion of the roof to create a "uniform appearance", but they are not going to pay for "diminished value" simply because a few shingles don't match.
The language "items do not match in quality, color or size" is generally applied to furniture, cabinetry, floor coverings, wall coverings, and similar items. A wall of custom cabinets, for example, may have to be replaced if one section is damaged beyond repair.
_________________
California-licensed Property & Casualty Broker-Agent and Life & Health Agent. CA Insurance License #0596197. Send me your questions, and I'll send you my answers. I live, breathe, and teach insurance! |
|
MaxHerr
Moderator
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 4218
Location: Pomona CA
162.55 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:28 pm Post subject: match |
|
|
Cali fair claims states:
(2) When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match in quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all items in the damaged area so as to conform to a reasonably uniform appearance
Note that it does not define "damaged area" If one has a 3x3 sr ft area of damaged shingles, it would seem that this would be the only "area" that would need to be addressed . Lousy wording I suspect, but still vague language. And most polcies state that they pay for "damaged property" .....not un-damaged property. JMHO |
|
Shelbgt1
New member
Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Posts: 2
1.22 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most homes have only one roof. If that one roof is damaged the policy promises new for old. Roof damaged, you get new roof. Lot's of opinions here and many seem not to understand the Replacement promise of today's policies.
_________________
Register Now to have your Insurance queries solved. |
|
French Fry
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If that one roof is damaged the policy promises new for old. Roof damaged, you get new roof. Lot's of opinions here and many seem not to understand the Replacement promise of today's policies. |
Only Replacement Cost policies give new for old... there are Actual Cash Value policies where depreciation applies (not new for old). If you roof is damaged _all_ policies will pay for repairs... it does not automatically mean the roof is replaced. This is not what "Replacement Cost" is. If the cost to repair is greater then the cost to replace or the entire roof was damaged, then it's replaced. |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5063
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
272.29 Dollars($)
|
|
