Tree Company Drops Tree on House, what Should I Do?

[Josh]

I completely agree with you, I'm just going by what the roofer I called said, and that is that insurance would replace the whole back side of the roof in a situation like this. I never would have expected them to replace the whole thing, but if they will, I may as well take it right?

Dan (djs) was spot on with this one. They're not going to pay to have an entire roof repaired when it's such a small area impacted. I don't know the overall condition of the house, but the roof does appear to be faded. If the guys that damaged it are willing to fix it by replacing any damaged shingles with new shingles, then that's a great deal and you should take it. If it does leak you always have the option of going after them again.

But to my point anyway, why should I have to have a patched roof, it doesn't have other patches and looks uniform so why should I settle for a patched and un uniform looking roof because of their mistake?

You get to have a piece of the roof replaced with brand new materials because they made a mistake. Again, it's not like this house is two years old and they've significantly damaged anything. They're willing to repair what they damaged and it really seems like you are more interested in trying to milk new roof out of it because of what a contractor said. You didn't clarify, but I suspect that the roofer you spoke with isn't an adjuster and has even less of an understanding of the situation than we do.

Ohh and like I stated before, my carpenter things that it may leak now because of the damage, and we don't know if any of the roof rafters are cracked broken etc, same for the sheathing underneath

It looks like the branch that fell on it really didn't do much damage. If there was any real force behind it to the point where rafters were actually cracked and/or broken, it would seem apparent. Assuming this house is in any reasonable amount of shape a roof can usually handle a branch falling on it without crashing down around it's occupants. In your area the roofs have to deal with hundreds of pounds of snow at a time along with ice scooting along on them, a branch isn't really all that menacing.

Yes the people doing the work made mistakes, but just because they caused minor damage to the roof doesn't mean you should try to milk them for anything more than them repairing the damage that was caused.

 

[Jdavidson015]

I'm not really trying to milk anything, the contractor, and the roofer both came to my house and looked at it, the contractor said it will probably leak, and the roofer said with insurance claims like this they replace the whole side of the roof. He was the one who actually made the point about it not looking uniform, which we all agree we don't like that idea. So I'm trying to figure out what I should do, because based upon what the roofer said, I could make the claim regardless and get the whole roof redone. Now about the snow, while it does weigh a lot, it isn't a sudden impact of a large 15' branch slamming down onto the roof

 

[djs]

Just to be clear, I can't tell you how many times I've had contractors tell the insured that 'the insurance company will cover this' only later to be told by the insurance company 'NO'.

A lot of it depends on your policy. There may be no coverage for this. They will not replace the roof, but may pay to add a layer of shingles, if deemed appropriate. They will NOT pay to take the shingles off the roof in undamaged areas. No need to, unless you have to many layers of shingles already.

Insurance companies will pay to get you back to a functional replacement. This does not require a new roof, but, if appropriate, may include adding shingles. It could mean they find some old shingles that are as worn out as your existing ones, so it looks right as well. Doing this might sound strange, but it gets you back where you were before the incident, which is what insurance is supposed to do.

In claims terms, replacing the whole section of the roof would be a betterment, or improving what existed. Betterments are usually not allowed, unless its part of the policy.

Dan

 

[Jdavidson015]

Just to be clear, I can't tell you how many times I've had contractors tell the insured that 'the insurance company will cover this' only later to be told by the insurance company 'NO'.

A lot of it depends on your policy. There may be no coverage for this. They will not replace the roof, but may pay to add a layer of shingles, if deemed appropriate. They will NOT pay to take the shingles off the roof in undamaged areas. No need to, unless you have to many layers of shingles already.

Insurance companies will pay to get you back to a functional replacement. This does not require a new roof, but, if appropriate, may include adding shingles. It could mean they find some old shingles that are as worn out as your existing ones, so it looks right as well. Doing this might sound strange, but it gets you back where you were before the incident, which is what insurance is supposed to do.

In claims terms, replacing the whole section of the roof would be a betterment, or improving what existed. Betterments are usually not allowed, unless its part of the policy.

Dan

Ok, that does make sense, but the roof has already been redone, and we are on the second layer already, so that is another problem as I believe 2 layers is max allowed

 

[Josh]

I'm not really trying to milk anything, the contractor, and the roofer both came to my house and looked at it, the contractor said it will probably leak, and the roofer said with insurance claims like this they replace the whole side of the roof. He was the one who actually made the point about it not looking uniform, which we all agree we don't like that idea. So I'm trying to figure out what I should do, because based upon what the roofer said, I could make the claim regardless and get the whole roof redone. Now about the snow, while it does weigh a lot, it isn't a sudden impact of a large 15' branch slamming down onto the roof

I'm not a physicist, but the branch likely didn't strike the roof with much force, if it had, there would be more damage. It looks like some older materials that have already seen better days had a chunk taken out of them.

As to the claim, I'd be shocked if they replaced the roof. My suggestions to you have been based on the fact that I'd like to see all parties involved treated fairly. By all means, file a claim with the carrier. This can result in premium increases (regardless of what any agent may tell you here, in some states it will impact your rate, even if it's not your fault). I would be shocked if they replaced the entire roof. It's possible that this contractor knows something about the way insurance carriers work in that state which I'm not aware of, but getting the equivalent of a nick on the edge of an old roof doesn't translate to a new roof in any situation I've ever seen or heard of.

Roofs are a funny thing. How old is the roof? Just for the sake of discussion let's say it's a 20 year old roof with a 30 year expectancy. Even if they "replaced the entire roof", it's unlikely they're going to replace it ACV. It's entirely possible that they'd only pay for the one third of the roofs remaining life minus the deductible. It should be in your policy, but I get the impression that the roofer didn't carefully review your coverage.

If you have a local agent you can talk to they'll give you a better idea of what's going on. If you think you're deserved an entire new roof (or even one side) with zero out of pocket expense because they caused minor damage, go ahead and start with the claim on the homeowner policy. That's probably your best shot at having the roof replaced because if this business owner has any sense at all about him he isn't going to be in the business of replacing roofs when his employees cause minor damage to them.

You can try to make the claim against his insurance too, but you might find they'll be even less generous with what they're willing to pay than he is. I'm not familiar with the finer points of civil litigation in a situation like this, but in most states the argument can go like this:

Mrs. Jones, we you replaced your roof 15 years ago and went with the 30 year shingles. The section of the roof in question is going to cost $450 to replace with materials of similar quality and considering that they had already lived out half their useful life here is a check for the $225 which represents 50% of the replacement.

Who knows, maybe they'll roll over and pay for the full roof, but I would bet good money they go for the option of trying to get the roof repaired at a reasonable cost considering the circumstances vs letting you win the free roof (or free half roof) lottery.

 

[LGilmore]

J,

One thing to realize when you listen to this "roofer" is he is trying to make work for himself. You have a few hours (very few, like 2-3) of work to be done. Been there, done that repair myself.

3 tab roofing is very color consistent over time. Patches usually only look like patches for a short while as long as he matches the color. The damage is at the drip line so it is unlikely that the roof will leak into the house. He needs to square up the damaged plywood and reroof that section. A few hours work.

I would not let the tree service send some guy over however as it would probably be just an employee. but get some second opinions from roofing services. You said it's a reroof (2nd layer) how long ago? Doesn't look real old. Ask the roofer (same or different guy) how much to just fix the problem compared to redoing the entire roof, which they're right, you can't put a 3 layer on. If the guy is suggesting a tear off of all the roofing materials and a clean roof, he's looking to make this a regular job, not a repair. You have to reign them in a bit too....

Good luck, I think this is something you can work out with the tree guy if your reasonable and he's reasonable. Yes, from he look of things it is unreasonable to expect them to redo the entire roof on that side. A new gutter run, a bundle of 3 tab and a 4x8 sheet of plywood and nails of course and a few hours labor and you're golden.

 

[Jdavidson015]

J,

One thing to realize when you listen to this "roofer" is he is trying to make work for himself. You have a few hours (very few, like 2-3) of work to be done. Been there, done that repair myself.

3 tab roofing is very color consistent over time. Patches usually only look like patches for a short while as long as he matches the color. The damage is at the drip line so it is unlikely that the roof will leak into the house. He needs to square up the damaged plywood and reroof that section. A few hours work.

I would not let the tree service send some guy over however as it would probably be just an employee. but get some second opinions from roofing services. You said it's a reroof (2nd layer) how long ago? Doesn't look real old. Ask the roofer (same or different guy) how much to just fix the problem compared to redoing the entire roof, which they're right, you can't put a 3 layer on. If the guy is suggesting a tear off of all the roofing materials and a clean roof, he's looking to make this a regular job, not a repair. You have to reign them in a bit too....

Good luck, I think this is something you can work out with the tree guy if your reasonable and he's reasonable. Yes, from he look of things it is unreasonable to expect them to redo the entire roof on that side. A new gutter run, a bundle of 3 tab and a 4x8 sheet of plywood and nails of course and a few hours labor and you're golden.

Thank you for your thoughts, like I said earlier, i wasn't expecting a whole new roof until it was mentioned, but I ran with it, why not right? We bought the house last year and the roof is expected to last another 7-12 years. However because it is a second layer, that when that area is stripped because you can't just put a third layer up, wouldn't there likely be issues with the rest of the roof where it wasn't redone, particularly with the seam of the start and end of the old to new, and wouldn't the roofer have have to put up 2 layers to keep it uniform and level. I'm fairly good with light carpentry, but have never done anything with roofing before. As far as the company I've had one out so far, and I have another coming later today, and they are the two best in the area, as proven through "Angie's list" and our friend who as mentioned is a contractor. John bean roofing and viola contracting if you care. They both have been doing roofing for as long as i can remember, and we see their work everywhere around here, so we are comfortable going with them. I will get him to send a price for the patch as well as the price to do the whole back so we have a basis, and if the tree company doesn't want to deal with the prices, I suppose we will just file a claim against him and see what happens. But just to reaffirm, the ONLY reason I was discussing a whole new roof is because the roofer said in situations like this the insurance generally pays to have the whole side of the house redone, and again, who am I to say no to that right? Roofs are expensive!!!

 

[Accelerated]

With regards to the roofer saying "insurance usually does X":
First, please do take note that our adjusting firm handles thousands of roof claims from dozens of different insurance carriers every year, from liability losses like this one to standard hail, wind and tree fall claims, and I oversee them all, so I am not exactly speaking from a position of ignorance here.

The only time a whole roof or a whole slope is replaced, rather than localized repairs being made for such a small area of damage, is when either the roof's overall condition prohibits localized repair, or code would prohibit localized repair. These circumstances usually include scattered damages and extremely aged and brittle shingles, and in this case the adjuster must determine that attempts at localized repairs would be impossible due to the age and condition of the roofing system. This situation would likely not apply in this case, as the roof does not appear to be too aged or in that bad of shape.

The other situation, being code, might apply. Most jurisdictions allow for 3 layers of shingle, though I do know of a few that only allow for two layers. The question then becomes: Can the roofer remove and replace the damaged shingles and sheathing without violating code, and is code enforced for such small and localized repairs For small repairs, many times one does not even have to pull a permit, which would mean that the code would not be enforced. While I am sure some jurisdictions are different, a local repair rather than a slope replacement does not require a permit or inspection by a county inspector.

Ultimately, so long as it is a small area of repair, the carrier would not allow for matching considerations, and the roofer should be competent enough to take a small sample of the damaged shingles to the local supply store and do their best to match the shingles as closely as possible. The need for a small patch on the roof is certainly not sufficient reason to replace an entire slope or an entire roof.

Keep in mind that a roofing sales representative's job is to sell roofs. I have encountered countless insured's who were misled by their roofers, and the pattern is very typical. The roofer says "oh yes, insurance will cover the slope" or "the insurance company usually does X", invariably accompanied by some form of "now sign here". Keep in mind that roofers, while they do see checks from insurance companies, and while some of them may have a bit more insight than others due to experience dealing with adjusters, they do not speak for the adjuster or the insurance company. The roofer can babble all they want about how the (partially damaged) roof is a covered loss, but the reality is that it is the adjuster that makes the determination, and based on the photos and information provided, unless there is more that we do not see here, any competent adjuster would advise the carrier that localized repairs can and should be made, and that roof replacement is not necessary to indemnify you.

If an adjuster submitted a report recommending a full slope replacement for such a small area, I would likely question them about it. Looks to me like you need 1 piece of sheathing and probably a bundle of shingles, as well as minimal gutter repair. Unless your county is crazy about enforcing code on such small and basic repairs (and most are not), your roofer is pushing for a lot more than is right for this type of loss.

Also, you mentioned your carpenter saying "we don't know if the rafters are cracked", and seemed to imply that this is additional justification for replacement of the slope. Let me try to help: Tell your carpenter to go into the attic and look for cracked rafters.

Insurance adjusters do not write estimates for damages that "might" maybe" or are "possibly" there. They write damages that are visible and documentable. The best way to put it is: If you cannot take a photo of the damages and tell the insurance company "This is what is broken, this is how it was broken and this is why you should pay for it", the damage does not exist. Since it looks like a piece of sheathing on the roof will require replacement, you will know quite quickly if the rafters are cracked when the damaged sheathing is removed. If you find hidden damages, take photos, and get them to the adjuster.

The upside to repairs vs replacement of the slope:
If repairs are made, a lot of the time, they will simply pay to repair the local area and be done with it. If you push for the entire slope, what will happen (as it does with all liability losses) is that your 10 year old roof (maybe older, just going by appearance in the photos) will be depreciated to Actual Cash Value (ACV), as liability losses only pay ACV, with depreciation typically based on the age and anticipated use life of whatever was damaged. If your shingles are as they appear, they are at least 10 years old, and are 20 year 3 tab fiberglass shingles, and the sheathing that was damaged is much, much older, based on the photos. This means that the insurance carrier would depreciate the loss by at least 50% (remember age and anticipated use life.. if the roof is older than 10 years, figure 5% for each additional year) and you would likely end up out of pocket a couple of grand to the roofer.

 

[Jdavidson015]

With regards to the roofer saying "insurance usually does X":
First, please do take note that our adjusting firm handles thousands of roof claims from dozens of different insurance carriers every year, from liability losses like this one to standard hail, wind and tree fall claims, and I oversee them all, so I am not exactly speaking from a position of ignorance here.

The only time a whole roof or a whole slope is replaced, rather than localized repairs being made for such a small area of damage, is when either the roof's overall condition prohibits localized repair, or code would prohibit localized repair. These circumstances usually include scattered damages and extremely aged and brittle shingles, and in this case the adjuster must determine that attempts at localized repairs would be impossible due to the age and condition of the roofing system. This situation would likely not apply in this case, as the roof does not appear to be too aged or in that bad of shape.

The other situation, being code, might apply. Most jurisdictions allow for 3 layers of shingle, though I do know of a few that only allow for two layers. The question then becomes: Can the roofer remove and replace the damaged shingles and sheathing without violating code, and is code enforced for such small and localized repairs For small repairs, many times one does not even have to pull a permit, which would mean that the code would not be enforced. While I am sure some jurisdictions are different, a local repair rather than a slope replacement does not require a permit or inspection by a county inspector.

Ultimately, so long as it is a small area of repair, the carrier would not allow for matching considerations, and the roofer should be competent enough to take a small sample of the damaged shingles to the local supply store and do their best to match the shingles as closely as possible. The need for a small patch on the roof is certainly not sufficient reason to replace an entire slope or an entire roof.

Keep in mind that a roofing sales representative's job is to sell roofs. I have encountered countless insured's who were misled by their roofers, and the pattern is very typical. The roofer says "oh yes, insurance will cover the slope" or "the insurance company usually does X", invariably accompanied by some form of "now sign here". Keep in mind that roofers, while they do see checks from insurance companies, and while some of them may have a bit more insight than others due to experience dealing with adjusters, they do not speak for the adjuster or the insurance company. The roofer can babble all they want about how the (partially damaged) roof is a covered loss, but the reality is that it is the adjuster that makes the determination, and based on the photos and information provided, unless there is more that we do not see here, any competent adjuster would advise the carrier that localized repairs can and should be made, and that roof replacement is not necessary to indemnify you.

If an adjuster submitted a report recommending a full slope replacement for such a small area, I would likely question them about it. Looks to me like you need 1 piece of sheathing and probably a bundle of shingles, as well as minimal gutter repair. Unless your county is crazy about enforcing code on such small and basic repairs (and most are not), your roofer is pushing for a lot more than is right for this type of loss.

Also, you mentioned your carpenter saying "we don't know if the rafters are cracked", and seemed to imply that this is additional justification for replacement of the slope. Let me try to help: Tell your carpenter to go into the attic and look for cracked rafters.

Insurance adjusters do not write estimates for damages that "might" maybe" or are "possibly" there. They write damages that are visible and documentable. The best way to put it is: If you cannot take a photo of the damages and tell the insurance company "This is what is broken, this is how it was broken and this is why you should pay for it", the damage does not exist. Since it looks like a piece of sheathing on the roof will require replacement, you will know quite quickly if the rafters are cracked when the damaged sheathing is removed. If you find hidden damages, take photos, and get them to the adjuster.

The upside to repairs vs replacement of the slope:
If repairs are made, a lot of the time, they will simply pay to repair the local area and be done with it. If you push for the entire slope, what will happen (as it does with all liability losses) is that your 10 year old roof (maybe older, just going by appearance in the photos) will be depreciated to Actual Cash Value (ACV), as liability losses only pay ACV, with depreciation typically based on the age and anticipated use life of whatever was damaged. If your shingles are as they appear, they are at least 10 years old, and are 20 year 3 tab fiberglass shingles, and the sheathing that was damaged is much, much older, based on the photos. This means that the insurance carrier would depreciate the loss by at least 50% (remember age and anticipated use life.. if the roof is older than 10 years, figure 5% for each additional year) and you would likely end up out of pocket a couple of grand to the roofer.

Wow, that's alot of info, thank you for your insights. Yes the roof is roughly 10-12 years old. We purchased the house less than a year ago and upon inspection, the roof still had half life left. I live in mass, and I believe 2 layers is the max allowed by code ( couldn't find anything definitive. And from what I've found out, in order to replace the sheathing they have to strip all of the shingles for that 4x8 area + , and then I found out through my state website, they typically replace up to the ridge. However also according to code, if 25% or more is being redone, the entire side must be replaced to conform to the new/updated building codes. I don't know how much this will end up being, but another thing that occurred to me is if the sheathing is set with the 4' edge is on the horizontal with the house trim, it will require a second sheet of sheathing. As far as code enforcement, I know my town is very strict, although we are in a different house, we are in the same town, and we had a pool at the old house. The town made us put up a 6' fence so we did, the inspector came out to check, and made us take it down and put up a new one because the chain links were "too big". Even to simply replace a window, we need to pay to obtain that permit at $25 per window. The second roofer couldn't make it today, and will be coming some time this week. He will be going into the attic and check the rafters as well as assess the damage to the roof. Yes the gutter needs to be replaced, as does and 8' section of the trim behind the gutter.

I really do appreciate everyone insights, if anyone thinks of anything else, please please tell me

Jesse

 

[LGilmore]

Jessie it is unlikely they need to replace an entire 4x8 sheet as the damage appears to be on end only. They can go 2(or 3)x what ever the run is to on center of the rafters. From the looks of it they will not have to open the roof up, just cut to where the overhang starts and then do what you normally do when reroofing.

Definitely NOT 25% of the existing roof that needs repair. Less than 5% from the looks in your picture.