Just because hail hits a roof, and even if there's evidence, it does not necessarily indicate roof damage. A shingle is damaged when 1) the strike affects its ability to shed water, or 2) its service life has been reduced. Remember - a roofer has no interest in repairing a roof - he's always always going to argue for a replacement. Don't believe this bunk about the insurance company being dishonest - insurance companies replace thousands of roofs daily - when warranted.
I see were using the Herzog definition. did you know he stood before a court and refuted that? So here's what you're actually defending: Haag in the late 80s early 90s produced a study widely distributed in the early 90s breaking "Physical damages" a term used in the insurance industry, into two terms. "Cosmetic" damages which is alterations aka physical damage to the physical properties of a shingle that do not alter the ability to shed water or reduce longevity, and then "functional" damages which do alter those abilities. However, there is no LEGAL definition for cosmetic vs functional, and in fact the 10th, 9th, 5th, and 2nd CoA have all recognized that "Cosmetic damages" are not a legally recognized term, nor can such policies legally be enforced simply by putting the words "Cosmetic damages are excluded". Herzog himself testified that Cosmetic damages are in fact physical damages. HOWEVER, if and only if a policy clearly defines and explains Cosmetic damages can they be excluded, otherwise by default, and by law, Cosmetic damages are in fact still physical damages
Roofers do NOT always argue for replacement. Yes, IC's replace thousands of roofs, but they also deny many that have demonstrable damage. I told this homeowner that I didn't think that hail damaged his roof. If he had called me before filing a claim, I probably would have told him not to.
@@homesteadroofing I'm with you. As someone who was a commercial roofer for decades before working with insurance companies, I'll confirm this is absolutely not the case. There are SOME roofers who are bad just like there are SOME adjusters that are bad. the biggest problem is you get people who know nothing and don't intend to learn, like roofers who think every drop of sweat is a hail stroke, or adjusters who dismiss 3" hail as bird feces. I remember that exact conversation on the fountain storm.
As a roofer I’m more concerned with the soft metals on this home showing strikes. Why do you not show the condition of soft metals in this video? Ex gutters, gutter guards, window screens. Hard to definitively make a call based on that alone. Also are trees covering the home? Your video doesn’t really show much….. if your gonna make a post at least give the complete story of the property.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
No Sir, I would not call that hail, nor would I have recommended the homeowner to file a claim.
Just because hail hits a roof, and even if there's evidence, it does not necessarily indicate roof damage. A shingle is damaged when 1) the strike affects its ability to shed water, or 2) its service life has been reduced. Remember - a roofer has no interest in repairing a roof - he's always always going to argue for a replacement. Don't believe this bunk about the insurance company being dishonest - insurance companies replace thousands of roofs daily - when warranted.
I see were using the Herzog definition. did you know he stood before a court and refuted that?
So here's what you're actually defending: Haag in the late 80s early 90s produced a study widely distributed in the early 90s breaking "Physical damages" a term used in the insurance industry, into two terms. "Cosmetic" damages which is alterations aka physical damage to the physical properties of a shingle that do not alter the ability to shed water or reduce longevity, and then "functional" damages which do alter those abilities.
However, there is no LEGAL definition for cosmetic vs functional, and in fact the 10th, 9th, 5th, and 2nd CoA have all recognized that "Cosmetic damages" are not a legally recognized term, nor can such policies legally be enforced simply by putting the words "Cosmetic damages are excluded". Herzog himself testified that Cosmetic damages are in fact physical damages.
HOWEVER, if and only if a policy clearly defines and explains Cosmetic damages can they be excluded, otherwise by default, and by law, Cosmetic damages are in fact still physical damages
Roofers do NOT always argue for replacement.
Yes, IC's replace thousands of roofs, but they also deny many that have demonstrable damage. I told this homeowner that I didn't think that hail damaged his roof. If he had called me before filing a claim, I probably would have told him not to.
@@homesteadroofing I'm with you. As someone who was a commercial roofer for decades before working with insurance companies, I'll confirm this is absolutely not the case.
There are SOME roofers who are bad just like there are SOME adjusters that are bad. the biggest problem is you get people who know nothing and don't intend to learn, like roofers who think every drop of sweat is a hail stroke, or adjusters who dismiss 3" hail as bird feces.
I remember that exact conversation on the fountain storm.
As a roofer I’m more concerned with the soft metals on this home showing strikes. Why do you not show the condition of soft metals in this video? Ex gutters, gutter guards, window screens. Hard to definitively make a call based on that alone. Also are trees covering the home? Your video doesn’t really show much….. if your gonna make a post at least give the complete story of the property.