What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas
Due to a recent hailstorm about 2 months ago I needed to file a homeowners claim (first time doing so) - the home was 5 months old before the hail damaged the roof. The adjuster viewed the damage and said the entire roof and gutters were shot and needed to be replaced. He cut a check on the spot for $9K (less my deductible of 4K) - I shopped around for roofers and submitted a final invoice to the insurance company - that invoice indicated the roof and gutters and came to $12,879.00. The work has since been performed but I decided against having the gutters replaced since the damage was mainly on the back of the home where no one could see and they were still functional. A paid-in-full receipt was submitted to the insurance company at their request that showed $9134.00 and also indicated the gutters were no longer included in the price.
3 days later I get a phone call asking why a final invoice showed a much higher figure while the paid in full receipt showed much less - I explained that the gutters were removed from the repairs at my request. The insurance company then asks where the deductible was applied and proof it was paid. There is where I get confused - given that the initial insurance check that (which was less my deductible) satisfied the roof replacement I wasn't aware I needed to pay anything else. Obviously if I moved forward to replace the gutters it would be out of my pocket. The call sounded very accusatory and apparently I'll be getting another call to re-explain the entire chain of events.
Is it that unusual to have a final invoice submitted and then to have proof of paid in full for a lesser amount? The roofing company said normally an initial check isn't so large but given it was a newer home with a roof that was less than 6 months old (minimal depreciation) allowed it to be paid in that manner when the gutters were removed from the work.
A little confused on what went wrong, where, and how to correct.
Due to a recent hailstorm about 2 months ago I needed to file a homeowners claim (first time doing so) - the home was 5 months old before the hail damaged the roof. The adjuster viewed the damage and said the entire roof and gutters were shot and needed to be replaced. He cut a check on the spot for $9K (less my deductible of 4K) - I shopped around for roofers and submitted a final invoice to the insurance company - that invoice indicated the roof and gutters and came to $12,879.00. The work has since been performed but I decided against having the gutters replaced since the damage was mainly on the back of the home where no one could see and they were still functional. A paid-in-full receipt was submitted to the insurance company at their request that showed $9134.00 and also indicated the gutters were no longer included in the price.
3 days later I get a phone call asking why a final invoice showed a much higher figure while the paid in full receipt showed much less - I explained that the gutters were removed from the repairs at my request. The insurance company then asks where the deductible was applied and proof it was paid. There is where I get confused - given that the initial insurance check that (which was less my deductible) satisfied the roof replacement I wasn't aware I needed to pay anything else. Obviously if I moved forward to replace the gutters it would be out of my pocket. The call sounded very accusatory and apparently I'll be getting another call to re-explain the entire chain of events.
Is it that unusual to have a final invoice submitted and then to have proof of paid in full for a lesser amount? The roofing company said normally an initial check isn't so large but given it was a newer home with a roof that was less than 6 months old (minimal depreciation) allowed it to be paid in that manner when the gutters were removed from the work.
A little confused on what went wrong, where, and how to correct.
Last edited: