Insurance Question Again.....Sheet Metal Chimney Housings That Have Painted Or Embossed Brick Patterns And 2 Piece Flashing Kit

Regarding the fake chimneys, which are actually just a Chimney Surround, on top of the roof top, where the gas B-Vent penetrates through the roof, what would be the line item for an adjuster to review when one of those are existing and in place on the roof plane that needs insurable covered work done to it?

The shingles butt up under the lower portion of the flashing and overlap the left and right sides, as well as the top short pan flashing. These can be quite the phantom ghost leak if not sealed correctly, just from a pin hole through the old metal flashing, which they do not sell separately, without purchasing the entire chimney housing kit.

The adjuster I am dealing with, claims that he has NEVER heard of any roofer even needing to remove the housing from the roof, which is all I was requesting, was for a remove and reset of the chimney structure.

The old tar and caulk must be cleaned off of the flashing components and then as our policy, if we do not see any evidence of pin holes in the metal, we encapsulate them below and on top with Grace Ice and Water Shield.

So, the adjuster is being petty about a very minimal charge for work that is required to ensure that there is no future possibility of leaks.

Is there an Xactimate line item that deals with this roof component?

Besides just doing it anyways, which I will be doing to ensure a quality installation, where do I stand as far as getting the home owners their justly due additional funds for this minor portion of work.

Or, do I get to that point of the project and inform the adjuster that I need his immediate attention and to get over their while the crew is waiting and charging our hourly rate while waiting for him to come out and approve the removal, inspection and resetting of the chimney housing and flashings in place?

That would really make me look look a prick, wouldn't it?

Ed>>>

Looking for some feedback on the percentages listed in the last paragraph of the previous post, which were reported to me by an adjuster about one year ago.

Ed>>>

Regarding the matching issue, he plain said it is not in the policy to be liable for that.

I was going to address that further after the first items were clarified and accepted as reasonable.

I think what he may have been inferring with his comment that it is not in the policy, was.....It is now our current policy to not pay for matching issues if we don't get called on for not doing so, because if no one brings it to our attention, I, (the adjuster), will have saved my company, (SF), a significant amount of funds and I will look like one of their prize adjusters because I was able to mitigate the amount payable.

Yes, I do believe he is a rookie, or alternatively, felt that I did not know what I was referring to, so therefor he tried to sweep it under the, "It's Not Covered And In The Policy" carpet, thinking that I would not know any better.

Come to think of it, this is probably the basic crux of most contractors views on the adjusters they have met. This is a seemingly common method of limiting losses, that an un-knowledgeable home owner or contractor would not even know that they had coming to them.

Further, when I combine the interior damage work to my list of items contracted, I need to get him to realize the additional line item that he intentionally excluded for the OH & P, which if memory serves me right with SF, is 29 + 20, per an insiders perspective that pointed it out to me about one year ago.>>>

Sounds to me like he was a newbie . What is to learned here is if you were able to educate him honestly . That means you have cleared the road for the next roofing contractor . There are also matching issues that can be addressed Good job Ed.>>>

Thanks TRG, Chuck and Randy.

I know that the item should and usually does get compensated for, even though the dollar amount is small on it's own merit, all of the small items add up in the end.

This particular SF adjuster is telling me that he has NEVER heard of any roofing contractor EVER charging for this before.

That tels me one of two things.

A) That he is inexperienced and doesn't know enough yet.

or

B) That he is being deceptive and trying to pinch pennies.

I already got him to admit that just the bottom 3 feet of the front slope, which is all he had included, would be impossible to repair and tie in, due to it being a 2 layer and the Village of Hoffman Estates requires 2 full 3 foot rows of Ice and Water Shield in their case, due to the wide soffit overhang. Plus, the shingles that I would need to lift up for the tie-in are old and brittle and would cause more damage and also, that the bottom would jump out at anyone looking at it because of the different color.

Whatever additional funds I get, go directly to the home owners anyways, because they already signed a contract with me to do the whole roof.

I also feel that the rear side should be picked up too, since their will be an incredible color difference between the old color and the new color, but at least he has a leg to stand on regarding that portion of the denial.

Ed>>>

You should be compensated just as if you are flashing a chimney. Use the same line item as flashing-chimney-small.>>>

Ed I'll have the answer for ya later today. I have been off trying to catch up on my repairs before my next trip in mid April. Is this a job you are involved in ?>>>

Old School Said: When I run into something like that I try and remove the old metal chimney and install a regular flashing around the pipe with a storm collar. Much better and the chimney is gone gone gone.

That is not the question though, but rather, what should the insurance company Xactimate line item be for an item like this. The flashings will have to have roof cement and caulk completely removed from them for a good seal to the new Ice and Water Shield and to cover the old nail holes in them.

Ed>>>