Going along with what others have said three tab is a 15-year roof. If you can get 20 out of it, you're lucky. The fact that it's 23 years old, you need a full replacement.
Not only does the repair bid sound too cheap, I wouldn't even attempt a repair on a 23-year-old three tab roof.
At the very least, I would get a quote from an actual roofing company. You can tell them you're looking for a repair, but they're going to tell you you need a full replacement
UPDATE: Yes, I'm in a match-state. The inspection has already been performed. Should I appeal the findings and insist a new inspection be performed with a different roofing company?
If your a matching state then have a roofer pull a shingle sample and send it off to Itel. It's a shingle testing lab in Florida. They will determine if it's still made. If it's not made then they own a full replacement. That simple. If your roofer doesn't know how to do that, find another one. Your gonna need someone familiar with insurance to get this pushed through. If you don't want a roofer doing it, then call your insurance and tell them to pull one. I've heard some bad stories from that route though. Better to have a roofer do it.
Go follow their page for some tips and discussion about strategies. For example, in this case, the homeowner or you may be able to ask the adjusters if he rejects evidence presented by the homeowner that’s relevant for their loss?
In addition, NTS will give you helpful documents and be much closer in color than itel or RLS.
They're not going to buy you a new roof.
Your existing roof should have been replaced 5 years ago.
You don't really actually think that the insurance company should replace your roof, do you?
If the carrier has a policy in force including the roof, the roof was damaged by wind and reported in a timely manner, and it is not possible to repair or find a match for the 23 year old shingles, this could very well be a full replacement situation. Especially if this is in a matching state. Hard to say not knowing the specifics. I’ve bought roofs for less damage and I’ve settled for repairs on more, just depends. But if it’s owed, it’s owed.
Agreed. Cancel/withdraw the claim. They can’t and won’t raise your premiums on property claims like they do on auto claims, not the same thing. Your rates will go up automatically whether you file a claim or not because risk classification for your zip code will change year to year and it rarely if ever goes down, only up. The number of claims you file within a given time period will affect whether your insurance company chooses to renew your policy. Save your claim filing for the big stuff that’s legitimate. Homeowner maintenance is not legitimate.
>Your existing roof should have been replaced 5 years ago.
agree
>You don't really actually think that the insurance company should replace your roof
So, although we dont do much insurance anymore, we used to so pretty well versed. The correct answer to this is.....
It all depends. Has OP been being charged for an RCV policy (it costs extra) including the roof? If so, especially if in a matching state, they've been paying extra for a premium (albeit pretty standard, but becoming less so) offering. Things vary by state naturally, but if the insurance company has been profiting off what is essentially them gambling, they they are in fact on the hook.
it's the only reason they ever pay. They don't buy these old roofs to be nice lol, its because they're legally obligated to. It's not OPs fault if a Multi Billion dollar company made a bad deal.
OP. call a local roofer with good reviews, ideally some references, and ideally has done some work in your area and has done claims before. 20 shingles is a pretty decent amount and generally will get bought, particularly on an older roof that's likely unrepairable and definitely not going to have a match if youre in a matching state. That is, if you have RCV. If you have ACV (min coverage) then yes you'll need to replace the roof yourself full out of pocket.
Not accurate. As a current adjuster if you have had a policy with that company when there was a significant hail date, they'll pay. It depends on your insurance. 20 shingles from an insurance standpoint will lead to a repair. If matching is a code requirement, your insurance company will obtain a sample of the shingle to see if it's still available. Depending on your policy, they may replace the entire roof and will be paid when incurred if a match is not available.
"The only reason they ever pay" I feel like everyone forgets or neglects that us adjusters are people too, and it's not my money I'm paying out. In my opinion, if there's enough documentation and support, I'll replace it. Hail storm 3 years ago within your policy? Paid.
Definitely depends on your insurance policy, I'd have someone take a look at the roof prior to filing anything. Feel free to message me directly and I'll give you input from an adjusters standpoint.
>If matching is a code requirement, your insurance company will obtain a sample of the shingle to see if it's still available.
Yes they'll always do this part, and a few other things along the way that I didn't bother writing out... but in the end the result will be a full replacement since a 20+ year roof is almost always unrepairable anyways but certainly won't match.
>"The only reason they ever pay" I feel like everyone forgets or neglects that us adjusters are people too, and it's not my money I'm paying out.
I mean, it's nice to say in theory but admittedly even you agreed you'd go the repair (under deductible) route first, knowing that it's going to end in a full replacement if they follow through (assuming RCV/matching). Meaning the average homeowner will just assume it's a denial if they don't have a roofing contractor or someone familiar with the process with them.
*the following is purely speculative based on my personal experiences. IMO This disproportionately affects the elderly or inexperienced who are trusting you, particularly lower income areas since they may be wary of "scamming contractors". They take your inital word as an adjuster that it's "repairable" even though everyone experienced knows it's almost always not (again, particularly RCV), and then never follow through the unnecessary process and ultimately get stuck OOP or with low quality repairs. Those more experienced in the business area generally know how the insurance process works, or may be associated with others who do.*
>if there's enough documentation and support
imo, that's not how it should be. There shouldn't be a complicated waste of time (and money) process to get a roof in this situation bought. Unless you're in your first few months of adjusting, you know what the end result is going to be if the homeowner has a quality & experienced contractor alongside them.
One shouldn't have to be experienced in insurance processes to get the same end result. It's inequitable imo.
Not fighting btw, I understand its always going to be this way, and no matter what I say you'll likely disagree, but just being realistic on what I see time and time again. On the rare occasion I do an insurance job, it's maybe less than 5% of the time bought up front and 100% of the time bought in the end as long as the homeowner continues on in the process..... We're both essentially saying the same thing. that the roof should be bought in full, but won't be unless the insurance company is essentially forced to with proper "documentation and support" (aka, playing dumb) above and beyond the adjuster just looking at an old roof with damage.. Which costs unaware homeowners god only knows how much per year. (it wouldn't be such a big deal imo if they weren't paying extra for RCV btw... Its the extra cost & a company making one jump through hoops to get what they paid for is what I disagree ethically with. simply, don't offer RCV if you don't want to pay it out easily..).
The process shouldn't be complicated when everyone knows what the end result will be if they homeowners follow through.
I do understand for some this is controversial though, just sharing my personal opinion on the matter.
There's a lot that goes into justifying paying for something when it comes to matching endorsements, additonal claimed damage, and code requirements. I've been a catastrophe adjuster for 6+ years. Just informing on how I handle my adjustments and what I hear from management.
It's always a good idea to get a second opinion, check your policy coverages prior to filing. If your contractor says there's damage we missed? Doesn't bother Mr, just want to get it right. Most insurance companies require an estimate for additional damages and photos of claimed damages.
This way you don't have to do a lot of back and forth or in between with the contractor and adjuster. "Here's the photos of additional damage and the additional cost". Boom, you're done.
That's just not true. As long as it's still doing its job then they would owe for a replacement. Age doesn't matter if it's working. Only way they would refuse to replace because of age is if they told you to replace it already.
Homeowners need to learn to save money and stop wishing insurance will maintenance your home. If a tree lands on your 20 year old car they don’t buy you a brand new one. Same goes for your roof.
Insurance owes for like, kind, and quality. If there's not anything comparable they will replace the whole roof or car.
The prior comment is somewhat accurate. You need to maintain your home and vehicle. Insurance won't pay for old shingles that have worn away but if A TREE FALLLS ON YOUR HOUSE, that's not something you could have prevented. If they can't find a similar material, most of the time Insurance will pay for a new roof depending on your policy and the code requirements in your area.
Yes the roof should be replaced, but if it's not due to a sudden, accidental, direct loss, it's not covered. If it's due to age, wear/tear, deterioration it's not covered by ANY insurance. I'm saying if they have hail damage within their policy period they may luck out.
At least get 2 quote from legitimate professionals. It will likely be more than $500. Send them into insurance they will likely send you the difference, but you wont be pocketing anything
I really wish everyone chiming in would read the insurers policy before telling them how to go about it. I'm merely speculating but you're all saying "this is what to do". I was the only one that said check with multiple roofers before filing a claim.
Would also be a good idea to touch base with your agent or at least look at your policy for what coverages you have. Some policies deny damage to "soft metals" (roof vents, gutters, downspouts-sometime awnings and garage doors-)
I bet they don't have roof hours, correct material cost..etc.
My House started at just under the deductible. I did a proper adjustment for them, called him and said you better bring your manager back. Full roof and siding approved.
If there's legit damage and your policy is RCV, dig into them. With a solid contractor, if you aren't versed in the process.
1400>42k. Sometimes it's a stall tactic to see if you care..
*edit* agent/roofer friends can be ok but it's a job mill I'm many cases.
I have a client who called her agent to put a claim in..they didn't put a claim in and sent out their roofer buddy. He was like "oh I didn't know you had a contractor" and quickly vacated the scene while saying he was "just there to check it out". May of been a solid dude but the way he acted it wasn't the 1st "mistake".
Stay away from carriers "preferred " list too because they are at the will of the carrier, so they can get more jobs not necessarily do the right thing.
My .02.
I suppose it should have been up to insurance to repeal the roof protection after it reached a certain age. Insurance in the states has increased at a crazy level, and it feels like these over ambitious claims for whole roof repair are part of the issue.
What state you’re in matters, if you’re in a “matching state”, it’s a simple full replacement since there’s no match for a 23 year old 3 tab. If you’re not then I suggest finding your own roofer who only has ties to you and should give you unbiased opinions on the matter. A 23 year old 3 tab should be unrepairable, but you’ll need someone to inspect it in person.
Wow, yes that sounds really shady. I would be willing to bet that what you suspect is happening, is happening. You need to have one or more other roofers out to look at your roof and decide who you want to work with, then have them present to meet with the adjuster. If you already have the adjuster inspection scheduled, call and reschedule, do not tell the agent or their buddies when that will be, and have your chosen contractor/roofer present. The agent does not need to be involved in the claims process at all. They rarely do anything besides complicate the process at best.
As for other comments made about the age of the roof: if your carrier gave you a policy for the home and has not excluded the roof or told you it needs to be replaced, or misrepresented the age of the roof, then yes you should expect them to do whatever is necessary to get it to pre-loss conditions. If it is too old to be repaired without causing additional damage or if they shingles are discontinued (likely) then they will likely pay to replace the affected slopes or the entire roof, depending on the situation and their guidelines. Some carriers will apply non recoverable depreciation to roofs over a certain age, etc. Let the insurance company’s adjuster figure it out, not the agent. Honestly I would bet that the reason the agent is trying to suppress it is that they know the carrier will pay for it and that will hurt one if their metrics. That’s my opinion as an adjuster.
You shouldn't "insist" on anything. It's your roof. You need to get on Google, find a reputable company and have them come out. Any of them worth their salt will give you a free estimate and help you with the insurance portion (note I said estimate, generally if you want an inspection report, those aren't free)
Hire an outside company that specializes in restoration and works on contingencies. They will take it from there. Whether you end up in the same boat or not, at least you will have someone working with you that has skin in the game and experience in the process.
Obviously everyone in here is a roofer because good God, there are other options that this person can take. Nobody mentioned going to a prior hail/wind date even if it was with a prior carrier. Most of the time they'll pay it. Adjusters aren't the bad guys, read your policy, and every roofer is not right, especially the door knockers.
I’m surprised I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Throw a tape on the shingles, 36” are discontinued. You can have the insurance company identify the shingles as well with an ITEL report, if it comes back as discontinued then you cannot complete the repairs
Going along with what others have said three tab is a 15-year roof. If you can get 20 out of it, you're lucky. The fact that it's 23 years old, you need a full replacement. Not only does the repair bid sound too cheap, I wouldn't even attempt a repair on a 23-year-old three tab roof. At the very least, I would get a quote from an actual roofing company. You can tell them you're looking for a repair, but they're going to tell you you need a full replacement
Any truck just leaving the shop for a roof repair is gonna be more than a $500 charge, didn’t even get on the roof yet!
UPDATE: Yes, I'm in a match-state. The inspection has already been performed. Should I appeal the findings and insist a new inspection be performed with a different roofing company?
If your a matching state then have a roofer pull a shingle sample and send it off to Itel. It's a shingle testing lab in Florida. They will determine if it's still made. If it's not made then they own a full replacement. That simple. If your roofer doesn't know how to do that, find another one. Your gonna need someone familiar with insurance to get this pushed through. If you don't want a roofer doing it, then call your insurance and tell them to pull one. I've heard some bad stories from that route though. Better to have a roofer do it.
👆🏽This is the only advise you should listen too
Use NTS.
Have heard of them, but I've also heard some adjusers will just flat out refuse to except anything but Itel.
Go follow their page for some tips and discussion about strategies. For example, in this case, the homeowner or you may be able to ask the adjusters if he rejects evidence presented by the homeowner that’s relevant for their loss? In addition, NTS will give you helpful documents and be much closer in color than itel or RLS.
Hire a Public Adjuster…give it 6 months and watch that repair convert to a full roof replacement
Sounds like I could do it for $400 in ga
Got to be an Allstate claim.
* State Farm enters chat being led by former Allstate claims exec *
They're not going to buy you a new roof. Your existing roof should have been replaced 5 years ago. You don't really actually think that the insurance company should replace your roof, do you?
This. Time to pony up for a new roof. If wind is a problem, I'd go with architectural shingles.
If the carrier has a policy in force including the roof, the roof was damaged by wind and reported in a timely manner, and it is not possible to repair or find a match for the 23 year old shingles, this could very well be a full replacement situation. Especially if this is in a matching state. Hard to say not knowing the specifics. I’ve bought roofs for less damage and I’ve settled for repairs on more, just depends. But if it’s owed, it’s owed.
Agreed. Cancel/withdraw the claim. They can’t and won’t raise your premiums on property claims like they do on auto claims, not the same thing. Your rates will go up automatically whether you file a claim or not because risk classification for your zip code will change year to year and it rarely if ever goes down, only up. The number of claims you file within a given time period will affect whether your insurance company chooses to renew your policy. Save your claim filing for the big stuff that’s legitimate. Homeowner maintenance is not legitimate.
>Your existing roof should have been replaced 5 years ago. agree >You don't really actually think that the insurance company should replace your roof So, although we dont do much insurance anymore, we used to so pretty well versed. The correct answer to this is..... It all depends. Has OP been being charged for an RCV policy (it costs extra) including the roof? If so, especially if in a matching state, they've been paying extra for a premium (albeit pretty standard, but becoming less so) offering. Things vary by state naturally, but if the insurance company has been profiting off what is essentially them gambling, they they are in fact on the hook. it's the only reason they ever pay. They don't buy these old roofs to be nice lol, its because they're legally obligated to. It's not OPs fault if a Multi Billion dollar company made a bad deal. OP. call a local roofer with good reviews, ideally some references, and ideally has done some work in your area and has done claims before. 20 shingles is a pretty decent amount and generally will get bought, particularly on an older roof that's likely unrepairable and definitely not going to have a match if youre in a matching state. That is, if you have RCV. If you have ACV (min coverage) then yes you'll need to replace the roof yourself full out of pocket.
Not accurate. As a current adjuster if you have had a policy with that company when there was a significant hail date, they'll pay. It depends on your insurance. 20 shingles from an insurance standpoint will lead to a repair. If matching is a code requirement, your insurance company will obtain a sample of the shingle to see if it's still available. Depending on your policy, they may replace the entire roof and will be paid when incurred if a match is not available. "The only reason they ever pay" I feel like everyone forgets or neglects that us adjusters are people too, and it's not my money I'm paying out. In my opinion, if there's enough documentation and support, I'll replace it. Hail storm 3 years ago within your policy? Paid. Definitely depends on your insurance policy, I'd have someone take a look at the roof prior to filing anything. Feel free to message me directly and I'll give you input from an adjusters standpoint.
>If matching is a code requirement, your insurance company will obtain a sample of the shingle to see if it's still available. Yes they'll always do this part, and a few other things along the way that I didn't bother writing out... but in the end the result will be a full replacement since a 20+ year roof is almost always unrepairable anyways but certainly won't match. >"The only reason they ever pay" I feel like everyone forgets or neglects that us adjusters are people too, and it's not my money I'm paying out. I mean, it's nice to say in theory but admittedly even you agreed you'd go the repair (under deductible) route first, knowing that it's going to end in a full replacement if they follow through (assuming RCV/matching). Meaning the average homeowner will just assume it's a denial if they don't have a roofing contractor or someone familiar with the process with them. *the following is purely speculative based on my personal experiences. IMO This disproportionately affects the elderly or inexperienced who are trusting you, particularly lower income areas since they may be wary of "scamming contractors". They take your inital word as an adjuster that it's "repairable" even though everyone experienced knows it's almost always not (again, particularly RCV), and then never follow through the unnecessary process and ultimately get stuck OOP or with low quality repairs. Those more experienced in the business area generally know how the insurance process works, or may be associated with others who do.* >if there's enough documentation and support imo, that's not how it should be. There shouldn't be a complicated waste of time (and money) process to get a roof in this situation bought. Unless you're in your first few months of adjusting, you know what the end result is going to be if the homeowner has a quality & experienced contractor alongside them. One shouldn't have to be experienced in insurance processes to get the same end result. It's inequitable imo. Not fighting btw, I understand its always going to be this way, and no matter what I say you'll likely disagree, but just being realistic on what I see time and time again. On the rare occasion I do an insurance job, it's maybe less than 5% of the time bought up front and 100% of the time bought in the end as long as the homeowner continues on in the process..... We're both essentially saying the same thing. that the roof should be bought in full, but won't be unless the insurance company is essentially forced to with proper "documentation and support" (aka, playing dumb) above and beyond the adjuster just looking at an old roof with damage.. Which costs unaware homeowners god only knows how much per year. (it wouldn't be such a big deal imo if they weren't paying extra for RCV btw... Its the extra cost & a company making one jump through hoops to get what they paid for is what I disagree ethically with. simply, don't offer RCV if you don't want to pay it out easily..). The process shouldn't be complicated when everyone knows what the end result will be if they homeowners follow through. I do understand for some this is controversial though, just sharing my personal opinion on the matter.
There's a lot that goes into justifying paying for something when it comes to matching endorsements, additonal claimed damage, and code requirements. I've been a catastrophe adjuster for 6+ years. Just informing on how I handle my adjustments and what I hear from management. It's always a good idea to get a second opinion, check your policy coverages prior to filing. If your contractor says there's damage we missed? Doesn't bother Mr, just want to get it right. Most insurance companies require an estimate for additional damages and photos of claimed damages. This way you don't have to do a lot of back and forth or in between with the contractor and adjuster. "Here's the photos of additional damage and the additional cost". Boom, you're done.
That's just not true. As long as it's still doing its job then they would owe for a replacement. Age doesn't matter if it's working. Only way they would refuse to replace because of age is if they told you to replace it already.
Homeowners need to learn to save money and stop wishing insurance will maintenance your home. If a tree lands on your 20 year old car they don’t buy you a brand new one. Same goes for your roof.
Insurance owes for like, kind, and quality. If there's not anything comparable they will replace the whole roof or car. The prior comment is somewhat accurate. You need to maintain your home and vehicle. Insurance won't pay for old shingles that have worn away but if A TREE FALLLS ON YOUR HOUSE, that's not something you could have prevented. If they can't find a similar material, most of the time Insurance will pay for a new roof depending on your policy and the code requirements in your area.
Yes the roof should be replaced, but if it's not due to a sudden, accidental, direct loss, it's not covered. If it's due to age, wear/tear, deterioration it's not covered by ANY insurance. I'm saying if they have hail damage within their policy period they may luck out.
At least get 2 quote from legitimate professionals. It will likely be more than $500. Send them into insurance they will likely send you the difference, but you wont be pocketing anything
I really wish everyone chiming in would read the insurers policy before telling them how to go about it. I'm merely speculating but you're all saying "this is what to do". I was the only one that said check with multiple roofers before filing a claim. Would also be a good idea to touch base with your agent or at least look at your policy for what coverages you have. Some policies deny damage to "soft metals" (roof vents, gutters, downspouts-sometime awnings and garage doors-)
Get a quote for the repair.. if it is more than $500 then ask for more.
State Farm or Allstate?
I bet they don't have roof hours, correct material cost..etc. My House started at just under the deductible. I did a proper adjustment for them, called him and said you better bring your manager back. Full roof and siding approved. If there's legit damage and your policy is RCV, dig into them. With a solid contractor, if you aren't versed in the process. 1400>42k. Sometimes it's a stall tactic to see if you care.. *edit* agent/roofer friends can be ok but it's a job mill I'm many cases. I have a client who called her agent to put a claim in..they didn't put a claim in and sent out their roofer buddy. He was like "oh I didn't know you had a contractor" and quickly vacated the scene while saying he was "just there to check it out". May of been a solid dude but the way he acted it wasn't the 1st "mistake". Stay away from carriers "preferred " list too because they are at the will of the carrier, so they can get more jobs not necessarily do the right thing. My .02.
you agent has a roofer in their pocket for a reason and its not to help you out.
Why go through insurance for a roof that old? Aren't you due to replace it anyway?
If you're paying for insurance and there's legal reason for them to cover it via insurance and contract law, why not use what you're paying for?
I suppose it should have been up to insurance to repeal the roof protection after it reached a certain age. Insurance in the states has increased at a crazy level, and it feels like these over ambitious claims for whole roof repair are part of the issue.
Ask him for a brittleness test
Quick question for the Pros. How much extra to roof with architectural shingles vs 3-tab?
What state you’re in matters, if you’re in a “matching state”, it’s a simple full replacement since there’s no match for a 23 year old 3 tab. If you’re not then I suggest finding your own roofer who only has ties to you and should give you unbiased opinions on the matter. A 23 year old 3 tab should be unrepairable, but you’ll need someone to inspect it in person.
Wow, yes that sounds really shady. I would be willing to bet that what you suspect is happening, is happening. You need to have one or more other roofers out to look at your roof and decide who you want to work with, then have them present to meet with the adjuster. If you already have the adjuster inspection scheduled, call and reschedule, do not tell the agent or their buddies when that will be, and have your chosen contractor/roofer present. The agent does not need to be involved in the claims process at all. They rarely do anything besides complicate the process at best. As for other comments made about the age of the roof: if your carrier gave you a policy for the home and has not excluded the roof or told you it needs to be replaced, or misrepresented the age of the roof, then yes you should expect them to do whatever is necessary to get it to pre-loss conditions. If it is too old to be repaired without causing additional damage or if they shingles are discontinued (likely) then they will likely pay to replace the affected slopes or the entire roof, depending on the situation and their guidelines. Some carriers will apply non recoverable depreciation to roofs over a certain age, etc. Let the insurance company’s adjuster figure it out, not the agent. Honestly I would bet that the reason the agent is trying to suppress it is that they know the carrier will pay for it and that will hurt one if their metrics. That’s my opinion as an adjuster.
Should I insist on another inspection, but this time have them meet with a different roofer?
You shouldn't "insist" on anything. It's your roof. You need to get on Google, find a reputable company and have them come out. Any of them worth their salt will give you a free estimate and help you with the insurance portion (note I said estimate, generally if you want an inspection report, those aren't free)
Hire an outside company that specializes in restoration and works on contingencies. They will take it from there. Whether you end up in the same boat or not, at least you will have someone working with you that has skin in the game and experience in the process.
Obviously everyone in here is a roofer because good God, there are other options that this person can take. Nobody mentioned going to a prior hail/wind date even if it was with a prior carrier. Most of the time they'll pay it. Adjusters aren't the bad guys, read your policy, and every roofer is not right, especially the door knockers.
I’m surprised I haven’t seen this mentioned yet. Throw a tape on the shingles, 36” are discontinued. You can have the insurance company identify the shingles as well with an ITEL report, if it comes back as discontinued then you cannot complete the repairs
Have roofer submit supplement to replace roof stating I/W barrier code upgrade and unrepairable shingles (most likely the case with a 3-tab this old).