Roofing Warranty

[adjusterjack]

If the roofing work required a permit and one was not pulled, for example, insurance coverage on any future roof damage potentially could be denied.

That is absolutely not true. There is no requirement in a homeowners policy that a permit be obtained nor is there any question on homeowners applications about permits.

 

[quincy]

That is absolutely not true. There is no requirement in a homeowners policy that a permit be obtained nor is there any question on homeowners applications about permits.

It is absolutely true. I have had more than one roof replaced on more than one house in Michigan, and permits were required for the roofing jobs by the localities where the houses were located.

If a required permit was not obtained, our insurer (Allstate) could deny a claim for damage to the un-permitted work.

Two links with interesting information:

https://homeownersinsurancecover.net/unpermitted-work/#Does_Homeowners_Insurance_Cover_Unpermitted_Worknbsp

https://ag.ny.gov/consumer-frauds/home-improvement-fact-sheet

 

[adjusterjack]

If a required permit was not obtained, our insurer (Allstate) could deny a claim for damage to the un-permitted work.

No. Take out your homeowners insurance policy, read it, and quote me word for word the part of the policy that says that. You won't find it because it isn't there.

The first article you posted says:

Generally speaking, unpermitted work is not covered by your homeowners insurance. False.

In fact, unpermitted work can interfere with your homeowners insurance as a whole. True, but that's an underwriting decision made after a claim is paid.

If you file a claim with your homeowners and they find out that you’re having unpermitted work performed on your property, they do have the right to drop your coverage due to risk. True. Again, an underwriting decision made after a claim is paid.

The second article, while good advice, says nothing about insurance claims.

 

[quincy]

We were told by our insurance agent that all work that we did on our houses that required permits must have permits or the work if damaged would not be covered. I will see if this is spelled out in our current policies.

 

[adjusterjack]

We were told by our insurance agent that all work that we did on our houses that required permits must have permits or the work if damaged would not be covered.

As a claim rep for 9 years my experience with insurance agents is that many of them barely know the names of the policies they sell, much less how to read them. Especially captive agents with direct writers like Allstate, State Farm, etc.

I suspect that your agent is telling his clients stuff like that either through ignorance or through an altruistic desire to make sure his clients get their repairs and improvements done properly.

Next time an agent says something is covered or not covered ask him to show you what it says in the policy.

 

[quincy]

https://www.allstate.com/tr/home-insurance/building-code-insurance-coverage.aspx

Perhaps I should mention that we have purchased older/often historic houses as rental properties and we currently have several of these houses. Our insurance agent has been with us from our first purchase years ago and we trust him.

 

[Zigner]

https://www.allstate.com/tr/home-insurance/building-code-insurance-coverage.aspx

Perhaps I should mention that we have purchased older/often historic houses as rental properties and we currently have several of these houses. Our insurance agent has been with us from our first purchase years ago and we trust him.

What you linked to explains an extra coverage that can be used when repairing a home after a loss when a local municipality requires that current codes be used.
For example...let's say your electrical system is not up to current code. Your insurance still covers it. In the event of a loss, the local municipality will require that repairs be made in accordance with current code. The coverage you linked to will cover the extra cost to do so.

 

[quincy]

What you linked to explains an extra coverage that can be used when repairing a home after a loss when a local municipality requires that current codes be used.
For example...let's say your electrical system is not up to current code. Your insurance still covers it. In the event of a loss, the local municipality will require that repairs be made in accordance with current code. The coverage you linked to will cover the extra cost to do so.

Right. The typical homeowners insurance policy will not pay for potentially necessary repairs to bring a house up to code.

The code violations are often the result of unpermitted work done on a house. Where permits are required, the permitted work is inspected to ensure it meets applicable codes.

If a re-roof requires a permit and the required permit is not obtained, and there is later damage to the roof, the typical homeowners insurance will not cover repairs that include bringing the roof into code-compliance. This cost is borne by the homeowner.

Therefore, homeowners should not have work done on their homes without a permit when a permit is required because the homeowner can be stuck paying for the cost of repairs.

 

[adjusterjack]

Perhaps I should mention that we have purchased older/often historic houses as rental properties and we currently have several of these houses. Our insurance agent has been with us from our first purchase years ago and we trust him.

That's all well and good but if he tells you that your roof claim would be denied because you didn't get a permit for its installation he is dead wrong.

Call him up and ask him exactly these words: "If a windstorm tears off my roof will my claim be denied because I didn't get a permit for its installation? Yes or no?"

If his answer is yes then you say exactly these words: "Please tell me exactly where the policy says that."

Have your policy booklet out when you call.

Then come back and report.

If a re-roof requires a permit and the required permit is not obtained, and there is later damage to the roof, the typical homeowners insurance will not cover repairs that include bringing the roof into code-compliance. This cost is borne by the homeowner.

Now you are beginning to understand the nuances of the insurance policy.

The policy will cover the ensuing damage (wind, fire, hail, meteorite, etc) but not the additional cost for a code upgrade unless you have code upgrade coverage.

But that has nothing to do with permit or no permit.

 

[quincy]

Do you intend to add more? Or do you just like my words?

 

[adjusterjack]

Both.

 

[quincy]

Both.

I see your late edit.

And I appreciate the insurance policy education - but what I previously wrote did not really require correction.

I wrote:

... The fact that debodun’s insurer inspected the property and approved the work is a good sign that the contractor followed all applicable laws, though. If the roofing work required a permit and one was not pulled, for example, insurance coverage on any future roof damage potentially could be denied.

What can matter is whether any work completed, without a required permit and subsequent inspection, was up to code. If a replacement roof was not permitted as required, and the contractor used shoddy material and/or the worker’s violated codes, an insurance claim for damages to the roof potentially can be denied. The original roof might have been covered but the replacement roof might not be.

 

[adjusterjack]

If a replacement roof was not permitted as required, and the contractor used shoddy material and/or the worker’s violated codes, an insurance claim for damages to the roof potentially can be denied.

Now you are changing parameters.

First it was just lack of permit that could cause a claim to be denied and that's wrong.

Now it's lack of permit, shoddy material and/or code violations that could cause a claim to be denied.

Since I have refuted the lack of permit thing let's just talk about shoddy material and/or code violations.

Yes, there is an exclusion that could remotely apply to some claims. I'll quote the whole thing for you:

We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered.
3. Faulty, inadequate or defective:
a. Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting;
b. Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
c. Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or remodeling; or
d. Maintenance;
of part or all of any property whether on or off the "residence premises".

For one thing, any of those can happen with or without a permit so a claim denial for no permit isn't going to happen.

As for the four excluded items, they would have to be the proximate cause of the loss for the exclusion to be evoked and only if the ensuing loss was not precluded by any other provision of the policy.

Fire, wind, hail, falling objects, and any other covered peril would not be denied even if any of those 4 elements existed because those perils are not precluded by any other provision of the policy.

I can't read your mind, only what you wrote, but what you wrote implies that you have somehow come to believe that if a windstorm blows the roof off, or another covered peril damages the roof, that the insurance company would deny the claim if the roof was installed without a permit or the contractor used shoddy material and/or the worker’s violated codes. Nope, not correct.

 

[quincy]

You questioned what I wrote originally, claiming that what I wrote was “absolutely not true.” It absolutely is true. I changed no parameters.

That said, we are straying a bit from the roofing warranty concerns of debodun.

 

[adjusterjack]

we are straying a bit from the roofing warranty concerns of debodun.

You're right. You did send us astray with your comment about insurance when insurance was not part of the OP's question.