• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

1st roof claim not paid, 2nd roof claim???

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

hansolo

Junior Member
I'm in Mississippi. Back in December I filed a claim for damage to my roof. I had the adjuster come out around the beginning of February and he told me that there wasn't enough damage to do anything. I told him how my roof was leaking and the 5 minutes total he spent at my house couldn't be enough to determine anything, especially since he didn't even look at all the damage. I called a roofer, who's son came by to take a look. He took pictures and told me that we needed a new roof. There was hail damage, shingles flopping/bending back in the wind and enough damage to warrant an entire new roof. With this new information in hand, the adjuster came out to meet the roofer. This time, the father (owner of the roofing company) came out. After a 5 minute conversation on my roof that I couldn't hear, they agreed there was not enough damage to even make it to my $500 deductible.

Now, at this point it's clear that someone has lied to me. But who was it?

We chose not to worry about the damage if it wasn't that bad, and as the adjuster suggested glued a few shingles back down. We received a letter a week later from the insurance that we were responsible for the damage.

This week, a hail storm came through and beat on my roof again. I'm not a roofer, I don't know that it was damaged at all, or if it was how bad.

My question is, will the past damage influence any claim from the suspected new damage? Can they deny a claim because we didn't fix the first damage even though they didn't pay anything out on a claim? I would argue that they didn't give us anything so the damage is still the damage....the fact that they saw it but didn't fix it shouldn't affect the fact that it might now be worsened?

Any and all thoughts please. I honestly don't even want to have to pay my deductible to get damage fixed, I can't afford it now. But it's better than having something worse happen later because it wasn't fixed. All I really want is for someone to tell me the truth.
 


sandyclaus

Senior Member
I'm in Mississippi. Back in December I filed a claim for damage to my roof. I had the adjuster come out around the beginning of February and he told me that there wasn't enough damage to do anything. I told him how my roof was leaking and the 5 minutes total he spent at my house couldn't be enough to determine anything, especially since he didn't even look at all the damage. I called a roofer, who's son came by to take a look. He took pictures and told me that we needed a new roof. There was hail damage, shingles flopping/bending back in the wind and enough damage to warrant an entire new roof. With this new information in hand, the adjuster came out to meet the roofer. This time, the father (owner of the roofing company) came out. After a 5 minute conversation on my roof that I couldn't hear, they agreed there was not enough damage to even make it to my $500 deductible.

Now, at this point it's clear that someone has lied to me. But who was it?

We chose not to worry about the damage if it wasn't that bad, and as the adjuster suggested glued a few shingles back down. We received a letter a week later from the insurance that we were responsible for the damage.

This week, a hail storm came through and beat on my roof again. I'm not a roofer, I don't know that it was damaged at all, or if it was how bad.

My question is, will the past damage influence any claim from the suspected new damage? Can they deny a claim because we didn't fix the first damage even though they didn't pay anything out on a claim? I would argue that they didn't give us anything so the damage is still the damage....the fact that they saw it but didn't fix it shouldn't affect the fact that it might now be worsened?

Any and all thoughts please. I honestly don't even want to have to pay my deductible to get damage fixed, I can't afford it now. But it's better than having something worse happen later because it wasn't fixed. All I really want is for someone to tell me the truth.
Ah, yes. The battle of the insurance adjuster vs. the contractor.

It's ENTIRELY possible that the roofer was pulling your leg in order to get a big, fat, juicy job and payment out of you. It happens all the time - more than people would like to admit. Considering that the adjuster turned you down a second time, even with the senior roofer present to argue their case, this actually seems the more plausible answer. Unless, of course, you can prove that the insurance company is just trying to stiff you on paying for a roof repair, which could be a difficult thing to prove.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Sandy -

The owner of the roofing company agreed that the original damage wasn't enough to meet the $500 deductible.

I suspect that the hail damage was a very minor portion of the "damage" and that the rest was considered normal wear & tear and is not covered by insurance.
 

sandyclaus

Senior Member
Sandy -

The owner of the roofing company agreed that the original damage wasn't enough to meet the $500 deductible.

I suspect that the hail damage was a very minor portion of the "damage" and that the rest was considered normal wear & tear and is not covered by insurance.
First the roofer says that the whole roof needs to be replaced. Then after a conversation with the adjuster, they suddenly change their tune and say there's not enough damage to even meet the deductible?

As I said before, I think that the roofer was probably "embellishing" in order to try to get OP to buy the new roof in the first place.

And as OP had asked, he wanted to know who was probably lying (and I still think it was the roofer). All the rest I agree with.
 

hansolo

Junior Member
Why would a roofer tell me that I need a new roof and then the senior roofer change that? The senior roofer doesn't want the work? It just doesn't make sense to me. The younger guy wanted to fight for knowing that the insurance was going to pay for it and the older guy just didn't want to do that as soon as the adjuster shows up? it just sounds fishy.

My real concern here is that they sent this letter that says i'm responsible for the damage and they aren't going to pay anything because it doesn't meet my deductible. Since that damage wasn't fixed, does the old damage roll into the possible new damage from the recent hail storm? Meaning, if I choose to try and file another claim, can the insurance say something along the line of " well, this much damage was already there, so we're only going to pay for this much new damage" ?

The concern here is that they'll try to get out of paying anything more, even if the entirety of the roof is now in need of replacement due to the new damage. I'm pretty sure even the adjuster admitted at the time that we were not far off from needing one, just not this minute.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top