CIAK or whoever.......

I looked at a ranch home this morning and long story short, shingles have been discontinued. State Farm adjuster paid to replace half of the front of home. I told him shingles were discontinued and he said it didn't matter.

I had same thing happen last year but State Farm ended up paying to replace the entire roof after the homeowner complained, re-inspection adjuster came out and approved because of discontinued shingles.

This spring SF replaced 30 sq of siding on a house because it had 8 pcs. damaged on the front of home....is there a general rule of thumb?

Anyone have any info on what they have to replace? I know policy says not responsible for color......what you all think?

Thanks

Fact.......... the whole point of the policy is to indemnify (make whole) the insured for their loss. If the roof is left in a disfigured cosmetic condition, this will cause a loss of value to the property, thereby compromising the insured's financial position. A buyer will most certainly want to pay less then market if they are faced with the prospect that they will have to replace the roof to make the property aesthetically pleasing. Not sure what the state issues for matching is in Indiana. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

It is State Farm RCV policy. I am in Indiana. He paid for 5.67 square R&R, total house is 28.90.

Randy Jake had a point. In what state is the loss? I"m not convinced it won't be replaced no matter what state. Florida is clear very few arguments. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

No offence taken.

I don't disagree with you CIAK, in any case where it is state mandated, law trumps policy. However not knowing where the job is or what the policy states, I would have to say that there are several options on getting it bought.

I guess I could have taken more care in writing the reply because I would say that any policy I have seen,the homeowners policy explicitly states it will repair or replace only the damaged areas. What we see based on a strict interpretation of the policy's replacement-cost provisions, insurers are not obligated to pay anything additional just because a manufacturer discontinues a shingle, or a siding pattern or color.

Now carriers are trying to sell a "matching endorsement" to solve the problem. The only thing is that there are existing provisions in a homeowner's policy that will allow you to get indemnified. (again, if state law does not trump.)The provision that most often is used, which is why I asked about viewable slopes, is that the loss effects the value.

You are absolutely correct in your carpet example, the problem is, there are too many contractors out there that just accept the first answer and a check for $1500 because they do not know any better.

I guess what I was trying to say with not a lot of clarity is, that when we are talking to adjusters, sometimes it is a semantics game. We say "profile" which means "matching", because the adjusters have been trained to say no as soon as they hear "matching".

Estimators on Call "Matching of Property Damage is Statutory in Florida" Jake, being a consultant should require you to know about your trade in complete detail. Your ignorance may be misleading your clients to a wrong conclusion. No offence intended please. Policyholders are promised “new for old” benefits when they purchase the pricier replacement cost provision and most shudder at the thought having to look at their patchy homes or businesses if the replacement is not uniform in appearance or quality Here in Florida it cannot be spelled out any clearer on matching issues. It is a state issue. The law overrides policy interpretations. Example "§ 626.9744. Claim settlement practices relating to property insurance. Again, it is a state issue. For Florida policyholders, if the policy calls for replacement cost and the loss occurred after October 1, 2005, it is important to know that Fla. Stat. § 627.7011 prevents an insurer from attempting to depreciate the undamaged portion of the structure that needs to be replaced due to matching: In the event of a loss for which a dwelling or personal property is insured on the basis of replacement costs, the insurer shall pay the replacement cost without reservation or hold back of any depreciation in value, whether or not the insured replaces or repairs the dwelling or property. A silly example, if carpet is damaged on the property . Do you replace just the portion that is damage leaving a spot different and not matched to the rest of the carpet? No. Same with roofs. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

We write this stuff all the time. You are dealing with an adjuster that is a little unclear on some policy terms. All we do is write estimates all day long. I have yet to see a policy that allows for "matching" of product.

What we do get bought is "profile" issues, and if they previously had a 20 yr product on, we are getting 25 yr now.

Also if the portion of the roof is visible from the street, you will have a better chance of getting it bought. I would recommend you have the homeowner call his agent for help too. They often times are fiercely defensive of their customers.

The role of an adjuster is a tough one, they work hard. They miss things, and sometimes they may make a bad judgement call. Remember to treat them nice...

Also, document everything with photos.

Yeah it makes sense. If the guy is green and thinks he is making an impression with management. Have the H/O complain it will all come off. Good Luck.Jim made a good point about value. Insurance wants to restore H/O. That is the intended goal. I'm off to Mobile for the rest of the week. Take a look coming off Africa right now. Nasty looking tropical wave possible formation. B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

Independent from Eberl.

Here in Florida if 25% of the roof needs to be replace then the whole thing comes off State Law, matching issues are real no matter what the adjuster says. I don't understand why an adjuster would not pay for a roof. They make more money as the claim gets larger. Was this a staff adjuster or independent ? B) :) :) B) Deep Down In Florida Where The Sun Shines Damn Near Every Day

I get that too, sometimes. I tell them it's all and it's gonna cost $$$$$ and if they wan tto increase the deductible from it's written $$$ to $$$$$, that's fine with me. Just You, the adjuster explain why it's suddenly $6,000. deductible instead of the policy's $1,000.

A home with two different types of roofing will be worth less than a home with a "normal" roof. Ask any realtor.

The insurance company has the duty to make the homeowner whole, not devalue his house. Put your request in writing, and cite the previous case. Talking on the phone doesn't count as much. If they refuse to pay for a full roof, file a complaint with the appropriate state agency.