Roof Damage To Be or Not To Be

I’ve been in the chat rooms today where the conversation remains active regarding State Farm Insurance being investigated in Texas. What has amazed me is the number of adjuster who adamantly state that roof shingles that have been lifted by wind but are otherwise physically fit are not considered to be wind damaged … in their humble opinion. As you might imagine, I adamantly disagree. The crux of their argument, if I understand it correctly is that because the shingles have no other blemishes or observable defects aside from being lifted by wind, that they are not considered as damaged.  

Of course if you are a homeowner, this means you’re not going to get paid.

I believe this type of analysis is flawed and here’s the reason why.  As I’ve stated on many occasions property insurance policies do not insure property: they insure people. They insure people against risk of direct physical loss, but nowhere in the policy does it define what is meant by direct physical loss. So in my not so humble opinion you (the insured) are entitled to the broadest possible interpretation of what constitutes direct physical loss. To restrict the investigation and subsequent observation to the shingles in these situations is myopic at best and wholly disingenuous. Roofs are a system. They are put together in a systematic fashion and each part of that system is dependent upon the other parts to ensure it fully functions as it is supposed to.  When one part of the system fails, as is the case of wind lifted shingles the entire system is impaired. That impairment is direct physical damage.

I used the analogy of a piece of tape being pulled up. When put back into place it never seems to have the strength of bond equivalent to the original bond. Shingles are no different.  The system is broken when the shingle are lifted and no amount of pressing them back into place will restore the system to its’ pre-loss condition. In my not so humble opinion.

Bill

Roof Damage

ABC News reported on September 7, 2012 that State Farm Insurance was under investigation in Texas for the way it handled thousands of hurricane Ike claims. Apparently winds from Ike cause shingles to become unsealed. State Farm Insurance’ opinion in this matter was that an unsealed shingle does not constitute damage.  The opinion is not isolated to State Farm Insurance however. Other carriers take the same position. That position however is unfair to policyholders making claims for damages to their roof.

I stated in a workbook I prepared several weeks ago that because the insurance company does not define what it considers damage, that the policyholder is entitled to the broadest interpretation of that phrase. I also indicated that something is damaged when there is a change in the condition of the property between that time immediately before the event and anytime following the event.

So let’s look at the unsealed shingle position as not constituting damages. The insurance companies (and presumably their engineers) opine that roofing shingles unsealed by wind will re-seal themselves after a period of time. What they fail to mention is how well the re-sealing occurs. If I pull a piece of tape off a plastic package and re-stick it back on that package the tape will re-seal, but it’s not the same. Once the seal on the tape is broken, it never seals back to the same degree and I believe the same holds true for shingles. As a former company insurance adjuster I’ve been up on roofs where the wind has broken the seal, the shingles easily lift up. I’ve also been on roofs weeks after wind has come through an area and lifted shingles. I’ve found the shingles on these roofs to have re-sealed, but the seals were weak and easily re-broken. I’ve paid for those roofs: why? Because the roofs were damaged by wind, that’s why.

A policyholder pays good money for insurance and should not be faced with a re-interpretation of policy language after the loss. A policy whose language is broad should afford coverage….period. Otherwise the policyholder should be informed beforehand that the company arbitrarily denies coverage for covered damages. That way they can make an informed decision whether to buy that insurance or go to a company that pays for damage when damage occurs. Of course the insurance industry can’t tell them that: they’d sell no insurance if they did.

Bill

p.s. I don’t know how long the link will stay active but here it is if you want to read the article for yourself http://abcnews.go.com/US/state-farm-faces-criminal-investigation-hurricane-claims/story?id=17167218#.UEytMVFSTW5