Home Insurance Claim Lawyer Up or No?

[Terminal1]

What is the name of your state? Kentucky
2025 a roofing company was paid via insurance storm claim to put a roof on my home and they did so badly. Had to come back to fix a lot of things. We told our insurance and they didn't care then. Winter Storm Fern hits and our attic leaks from an ice dam. Does quite a bit of damage, now insurance seems to care. But not enough to hold them accountable, yet. The subrogation dept contacted us and asked for an itemized receipt. Well, we just had an agreement. So we cc'd the company and asked they send one via e mail back and it was redacted where the pricing was listed. I don't know if that is normal. Why redact that? It went to the insurance and they knew it.

We are having a different roofing company go up and flash our home, out of pocket. We are going above and beyond code in the valleys and around our walls with 3 ft flashing up and out. We are building a new roof design as well. We already had insulation to code in our attic. We had just spent 40 thousand on new carpet, new entry, new tile, some new studs, and some new work in the garage and basement and a whole new poured stamped walkway (old walkway was brick and it was falling apart and mice were getting in holes) as well as a 3 thousand dollar termite treatment that prevents termites for up to 20 years, even though we didn't have termites, there was a nest in a stump next to us. All got wet and ruined (sans termite treatment). Some can be saved. Carpet can be cleaned but it's pulled back right now. Basically, I am saying, we do NOT ignore our property!

Adjustor said that if the new roofers find anything the old roofers did wrong to document and send and she will send to subrogate. Well, ok that's a positive. We did give the company the chance to investigate our roof but we voice recorded the entire visit. During the visit, on tape, we have the company denying they installed anything wrong. Agreeing we needed bigger flashing than current code along an area. Admitting they never flashed with new flashing but...if we tell our insurance company ice damaged our flashing they will definitely fix it with the claim money. OMG what? No! That's fraud!!! Ice didn't damage our flashing! Not to mention this area never ever leaked UNTIL we got a new roof. We have been there over a decade, snow and ice storms, rain and hail and wind and that area never ever leaked. So, a less than a year old roof leaking...I get ice dams can be insane, but in my long life I've yet to see an ice dam do damage in my state. And on a new roof??

So, yes we are paying a contractor we trust to fix the inside of our home. Taking a gamble on a new roofing contractor OOP to re flash and build a new porch roof to help with runoff, going to get a company to come in and see if the rest of our home needs updated insulation to combat something like this happening again. However, I feel like there is something up with the roofer. I talked with an attorney who works on a contingency taking 30% if we win. They said if the insurance company denied any of my needs on this claim to call. They found the roofer to be shady, at best. We will be submitting an estimate this next week for repairs inside our home. Our contractor is a 2 man team and he's been at it 30 years. He isn't perfect but he is honest and he does come back to fix things, and he's fairly priced and already said he's working on homes and insurance are saying to people....they won't fix these ice dam issues because they are saying homes were not kept up. Well, new roof, new carpet, perfect drywall, we were in the process of tiling our foyer and that's all wet, it would be hard to say we didn't keep up our home.

I am thinking of calling the lawyer about the roofing contractor. As it stands we get no money to put toward fixing what we feel and other roofers feel should have been a given with a total tear off. If the insurance subrogates they keep the money and put toward our new repairs. Because of the complexity of this storm and the parts involved would a lawyer be wise? Honestly, they get paid if we win so I'm thinking i have nothing to lose at this point. My insurance is a policy that pays 100% regardless of depreciation or what the cost is as long as it's remotely reasonable, thankfully. Insurance agent has been nice but I can totally tell they don't want to get into the roofing contractor issue. I can also tell by their tone that they know something is up. Thoughts?? We are so sad because we finally got to where we could start really updating our home, the important stuff, like windows and stuff to protect the home and this happens after we dropped 40K of our hard earned money on repairs to update us. Feeling like the roofer messed us over and having to go into all this feels like trying to run uphill in mud. Any opinions would be welcome.

 

[AlmostThere]

What is the name of your state? Kentucky
2025 a roofing company was paid via insurance storm claim to put a roof on my home and they did so badly. Had to come back to fix a lot of things. We told our insurance and they didn't care then. Winter Storm Fern hits and our attic leaks from an ice dam. Does quite a bit of damage, now insurance seems to care. But not enough to hold them accountable, yet. The subrogation dept contacted us and asked for an itemized receipt. Well, we just had an agreement. So we cc'd the company and asked they send one via e mail back and it was redacted where the pricing was listed. I don't know if that is normal. Why redact that? It went to the insurance and they knew it.

We are having a different roofing company go up and flash our home, out of pocket. We are going above and beyond code in the valleys and around our walls with 3 ft flashing up and out. We are building a new roof design as well. We already had insulation to code in our attic. We had just spent 40 thousand on new carpet, new entry, new tile, some new studs, and some new work in the garage and basement and a whole new poured stamped walkway (old walkway was brick and it was falling apart and mice were getting in holes) as well as a 3 thousand dollar termite treatment that prevents termites for up to 20 years, even though we didn't have termites, there was a nest in a stump next to us. All got wet and ruined (sans termite treatment). Some can be saved. Carpet can be cleaned but it's pulled back right now. Basically, I am saying, we do NOT ignore our property!

Adjustor said that if the new roofers find anything the old roofers did wrong to document and send and she will send to subrogate. Well, ok that's a positive. We did give the company the chance to investigate our roof but we voice recorded the entire visit. During the visit, on tape, we have the company denying they installed anything wrong. Agreeing we needed bigger flashing than current code along an area. Admitting they never flashed with new flashing but...if we tell our insurance company ice damaged our flashing they will definitely fix it with the claim money. OMG what? No! That's fraud!!! Ice didn't damage our flashing! Not to mention this area never ever leaked UNTIL we got a new roof. We have been there over a decade, snow and ice storms, rain and hail and wind and that area never ever leaked. So, a less than a year old roof leaking...I get ice dams can be insane, but in my long life I've yet to see an ice dam do damage in my state. And on a new roof??

So, yes we are paying a contractor we trust to fix the inside of our home. Taking a gamble on a new roofing contractor OOP to re flash and build a new porch roof to help with runoff, going to get a company to come in and see if the rest of our home needs updated insulation to combat something like this happening again. However, I feel like there is something up with the roofer. I talked with an attorney who works on a contingency taking 30% if we win. They said if the insurance company denied any of my needs on this claim to call. They found the roofer to be shady, at best. We will be submitting an estimate this next week for repairs inside our home. Our contractor is a 2 man team and he's been at it 30 years. He isn't perfect but he is honest and he does come back to fix things, and he's fairly priced and already said he's working on homes and insurance are saying to people....they won't fix these ice dam issues because they are saying homes were not kept up. Well, new roof, new carpet, perfect drywall, we were in the process of tiling our foyer and that's all wet, it would be hard to say we didn't keep up our home.

I am thinking of calling the lawyer about the roofing contractor. As it stands we get no money to put toward fixing what we feel and other roofers feel should have been a given with a total tear off. If the insurance subrogates they keep the money and put toward our new repairs. Because of the complexity of this storm and the parts involved would a lawyer be wise? Honestly, they get paid if we win so I'm thinking i have nothing to lose at this point. My insurance is a policy that pays 100% regardless of depreciation or what the cost is as long as it's remotely reasonable, thankfully. Insurance agent has been nice but I can totally tell they don't want to get into the roofing contractor issue. I can also tell by their tone that they know something is up. Thoughts?? We are so sad because we finally got to where we could start really updating our home, the important stuff, like windows and stuff to protect the home and this happens after we dropped 40K of our hard earned money on repairs to update us. Feeling like the roofer messed us over and having to go into all this feels like trying to run uphill in mud. Any opinions would be welcome.

From experience, it can be hard to recover anything on a bad roof. While the cost is a lot to the end consumer, and beyond a small claims court, it is not enough to be worth suing in Civil Court. And even if you did win, most roofers are one or two jobs away from bankruptcy, making it nearly impossible to collect. Try Googling Roofing Company and Bankruptcy.

I am sorry this happened..

 

[adjusterjack]

If your attorney will go after the roofer on a contingency, go for it. Just make sure you get a written contingency agreement. Read it, understand it, and keep it in your permanent file. Watch for additional charges above the contingency percentage. There may be a higher percentage for litigation. There may be expenses for experts.

I was also going to make the same point about roofers (and contractors in general) that almostthere just made.

Which is why I'm surprised that an attorney would take the case on a contingency.

 

[Terminal1]

From experience, it can be hard to recover anything on a bad roof. While the cost is a lot to the end consumer, and beyond a small claims court, it is not enough to be worth suing in Civil Court. And even if you did win, most roofers are one or two jobs away from bankruptcy, making it nearly impossible to collect. Try Googling Roofing Company and Bankruptcy.

I am sorry this happened..

Yes, since it was an insurance claim the agent said that when the new roofers are up there if they find anything suspicious have them photo and send to her. I do not disclose any of my contractor names to others to weed out "good ole boy" mentality so they won't just ignore whatever. You never know.

 

[Terminal1]

If your attorney will go after the roofer on a contingency, go for it. Just make sure you get a written contingency agreement. Read it, understand it, and keep it in your permanent file. Watch for additional charges above the contingency percentage. There may be a higher percentage for litigation. There may be expenses for experts.

I was also going to make the same point about roofers (and contractors in general) that almostthere just made.

Which is why I'm surprised that an attorney would take the case on a contingency.

Yeah, there are lawyers who are like the slip n falls but they go after homeowner insurance claims that get denied or go wrong. Right now I'm getting zero money for the roof and zero help is covered. Even with a 35% contingency fee, that's more than I'd get if I did nothing. There is no higher percentage for litigation with this lawyer and they aren't using experts. It's a pretty basic system of sue insurance, insurance may sue the roofers insurance...someone will pay..or not. I don't pay unless they win. It's a tool I'm keeping in my pocket.

I hate every contractor I have had to deal with this year. And my H and I know how to do a lot of things, unfortunately the scope of what we needed is beyond our knowledge. It's rough watching your home get damaged by Larry, Curly and Moe while you are paying them to do it. I am convinced the good contractors are boutique and only want to do super expensive renovations, and we aren't at that stage. We are taking care of the parts of our home that need it due to age or water damage first. You have to protect the shell, then we can worry about inside.

I hired a contractor with my own money to do several jobs. This one was recommended by my realtor and she owns a famous historic home she updates constantly. She has been in a magazine and she is very well known. I asked her who she uses and she said this guy was great. Well, he is about a 3 star out of 5 and tbh, that's the best contractor I've seen, so far. He never cleaned up after his work, he left us with 2" of drywall joint compound for us to finish, didn't remove my baseboards when he did my tile. So, instead of fixing the baseboards we decided to tile the areas where they were since it's the foyer. We had him do our foyer tile because we are busy and we were there! It's just OK. We have tiled 2 rooms plus backsplashes and we do excellent tile work. Should have did it ourself! He never takes our calls, yet is excited when he finally does take one to do our next project. I think he blocks us and for the life of me I don't know why. We have not complained to him...yet.

He built a small roof over my front door because my home didn't have one, I wanted to protect my new entry and it's sandwiched between two walls so the design is not optimal. He just slapped one side against my fascia. He loves copper, he made copper channels to funnel water into my seamless gutters and the one on the right doesn't even catch water the water is just pouring out of the hole next to it. My J channel looks like crap which he said he would fix when it warms up, I get that. And the siding weeps, water is getting in there somewhere because the siding above my door should NOT be weeping in rain. It rained yesterday for the first time weeping. It weeped in the snow storms but we assumed it was part of the ice dam/ice melt or the fact that we have yet to finish it out inside so maybe we had some condensation. I told them copper and aluminum should not be used that way, he glossed over like he was a total doofus when I started talking about the chemical reaction. I am a scientist as well as my H but I know more about this topic so my H didn't catch it. I literally raised up in the middle of the night and thought about it about a month after he did it. When asked why that's acceptable in building (it's not) he said copper cannot touch aluminum. I said...OK. I'm not arguing with someone who isn't educated. But if water runs off the copper directly onto aluminum that will cause a reaction. So with all that, the leaking porch, we are taking a video tomorrow replicating rain using our water hose. He is to come out Sunday thinking he was going to get part of the bid to fix our drywall from Storm Fern, but since we found this I decided to stop him at the door, he has to fix the leak and what he doesn't know is that I'm never using him again.

He also doesn't know that this entire thing he built must be torn out and a different roof built to help with our runoff. And frankly I'll be glad it's gone it's janky. But, here is how we plan to play it so let me know if this would hold up legally, we are going to audio tape the visit without their knowledge, show them the leaks, tell them we need it corrected because they never answer their phone. If they play ball and want to fix the leak, OK. But I may let them know it will have to be taken down and if they are willing to repair if they would consider reimbursing us for cost of supplies and call it a day. If they balk on both, we plan to take them to court for the cost of the total structure because it leaked, and the cost of replacing it because it's leaking. If they fix the leaks, we really aren't asking for any money back, we will eat it, it's not their place to pay to tear it off and put a new one on if they are willing to fix it until we get a new porch because I chose that style. I am hoping, though, since it'd be easier on my pocketbook they would reimburse us for supplies and have a pretty heart to heart about the issues inside we have been left with and feel that if we have to finish their work it's only fair. Their time is money so they may rather be making more money on a different project than making no money fixing our gable porch. In which we will tarp it and in a few weeks get a whole new one anyway. Even if he gets an attitude we are going to stay calm and just say well, ok then. Not threatening to take him to court. We WILL take him to court. And he will know when he gets that letter in the mail from a lawyer. And it won't be small claims. I'd think a video and photos and an opportunity for him to cure the problem would suffice enough to convince a judge that we deserve to be compensated in some way.

I sat down yesterday, and I am a pretty strong person, I've dealt with these contractors since may. Concrete, roofing, the guy above plus this storm damage. I left a neg review of the roofing company and the owner called me and yelled at me. I've been talked to like I don't know anything because I'm a woman. I had one contractor when I was interviewing contractors who said he'd rather talk to my H. I have been flirted with, had my personal space invaded, my yard torn up, damage to my home that they needed to fix because they just idk damaged it my concrete guy is an alcoholic and I like him but I do NOT like doing business with him. Beautiful work, but oh my is he a hard one to deal with on a job but of all the ones who did work, his was perfection, he was just drunk all day. So, I just sat in the floor and cried. I don't remember the last time I did cry. Then I got on the phone and started calling the pros who i need to put my beautiful carpet back upstairs and clean it due to the ice dam. Onward. Nothing else I can do. I just keep thinking, keep going, keep being honest, keep advocating for my home and fight for it if I have to and it will work out. But oh am I tired. I tried to talk to them, I grew up blue collar but we are most definitely now white collar. I'm not sure if they do this to all clients or they do it to the ones with money but I cannot talk to them and they cannot talk to me, it's like we don't even think on the same level. And my family built a home and they were not "contractors" and it was perfect. IDK what the deal is with these people today.

 

[AlmostThere]

All of your plotting aside - I will let someone else speak to legalities there.

Even if you use a lawyer, if the roofer goes bankrupt, the lawyer will recieve 35% of nothing, and you will receive 65% of nothing.

And there can be out-of-pocket costs for you, even in a contingency case, such as filing fees, expert witnesses, etc. The Lawyer getting paid is contingent on you winning. The other costs, not so much.

 

[adjusterjack]

It's a pretty basic system of sue insurance

Well, no.

Nothing you've written suggests that there is anything to sue your insurer for.

If you think there is please keep your explanation down to a few sentences.

 

[Just Blue]

Well, no.

Nothing you've written suggests that there is anything to sue your insurer for.

If you think there is please keep your explanation down to a few sentences.

I agree. The novella postings are getting tiresome.

 

[Taxing Matters]

If they balk on both, we plan to take them to court for the cost of the total structure because it leaked, and the cost of replacing it because it's leaking.

If it will cost more to fix the structure than to repair it, why are you arguing about repairs in the first place? If the cost to repair it correctly is less than what it cost to replace the structure, the court will only award you the cost of repair. That assumes you can win your case, which would likely be a breach of contract case, not a tort claim (claims for personal injury and property damage due to negligence are both types of tort claims).

In a contract claim, you generally must provide the contractor an opportunity to cure the breach before you sue. If the contractor is willing to do a proper repair, then you either let him to do the repair to see if he can get it right (and if he does you'll of course owe what you agreed to pay for the work) or you can refuse to let him do the repair but then you may end up getting nothing from the contractor. If your intent is already to tear it down anyway then the repair would be pointless and a court won't award you anything because you'll have lost nothing by not having the repair work done.

We WILL take him to court. And he will know when he gets that letter in the mail from a lawyer. And it won't be small claims. I'd think a video and photos and an opportunity for him to cure the problem would suffice enough to convince a judge that we deserve to be compensated in some way.

You should be aware that in Kentucky if your claim is for $5,000 or less, that is a case that you file in District Court. District Court hears small claims court cases (which are limited to money claims of no more $2,500) and regular civil court cases of no more than $5,000. Any civil case for more than that is heard by Circuit Court. Any civil case over $250 other than a small claims court case may be heard by jury. If it's a jury trial, the jury decides the case, not the judge. District Court trials have 6 member juries, Circuit Court juries have 12 member juries unless the parties have agreed to a fewer number of jurors (though not less than nine) As the plaintiff in a jury trial, you must convince at least three-quarters (75%) of the jurors to decide in your favor. Small claims court cases are always decided by a judge and have pretty simple rules compared to the rules for trials outside of small claims actions.

The rules of procedure and evidence for civil cases outside small claims are court are complex and are best done with the help of an attorney. District courts will provide some extra latitude in the application of some of the rules, but that doesn't necessarily make the case much easier for you. You have to have a good grasp of the Kentucky rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence. If you don't know the rules, you have a much higher chance of screwing up the case and losing. That's especially significant for the plaintiff (you) since you bear the burden of convincing the jury or judge that you are correct. In other words, in most civil trials, a tie goes to the defendant. So your case has to be at least a little more convincing than the defendant's case. Not knowing the rules makes that a lot harder. For example, if you don't know the rules evidence well you may not know what is required to get a particular kind of evidence admitted. If you don't do it right, the jury will never hear that evidence or, in a case to a judge, the judge won't consider that evidence in his/her decision. Realistically, if you want a good chance to win outside of small claims court you're probably going to want to have a lawyer.

The idea of covertly taping a conversation often sounds good, but there are pitfalls you need to be aware of. In Kentucky, the person recording the conversation must be a party to that the conversation. Then there are certain things you must do to get the judge to admit it as evidence. If you are representing yourself and you are the one who recorded the conversation that makes for an extra hurdle because you in effect have to do two roles at once: playing the lawyer asking the witness questions and as the witness. As part of getting the evidence admitted, you have to show that the evidence is reliable. For a recorded conversation that means being able to show that the recording is authentic and reliable. The explosion of AI in the last two years has had a significant impact for trials because now you have to be able to rebuff any challenge from the opposing side claiming the recording is an AI fabrication or that the recording was modified in some manner by AI. You'd want advice from an attorney of how best to record it so that it meets what is required for authentication and can survive any challenges recording its reliability. You may need an expert witness who can testify to accuracy of the recording, and experts don't come cheap.

Talk to a civil litigation attorney before embarking on a path for litigation, including gathering evidence like making covert recordings of conversations, so you can learn what to do to make it useful in court and can decide if it's even going to be worth doing given what it will cost you.

Attorneys will take cases, including contract cases, on a contingent fee (the fee is the charge for the lawyer's time) only if the potential fee will be worth the time and effort that will go into it. You may still have to expenses of litigation, like costs of depositions, court filing fees, expert fess, etc. If the lawyer is going to cover those costs, too, the contingent amount the lawyer will seek is going to be higher than one-third (which is the most common contingent fee rate when the client pays the expenses). You might be looking at 40% or more. Make sure you completely understand what you are obligated to pay before signing any fee agreement. Civil litigation can require a lot of time and expense. A lawyer taking a case on a contingent fee is going to be looking at potential awards of at least in the tens of thousands of dollars to make his/cut of the award worth his/her time. If you have a decent case but the potential award isn't very big you can find lawyers to do the case on an hourly fee basis, but then that shifts the risk to you that the case will require more work (and thus more money) than you originally thought.

One final thing. If your main reason to sue is simply to make a point to the other side or get some revenge by costing him a lot of money in litigation costs, forget about going down that path. As soon as a client says "It's not really about the money..." you'll lose the attorney's interest. Clients who are hell bent on causing the other side grief are also hell for a lawyer to work for, and pretty much any experienced attorney will quickly turn down that kind of client. The amount that the attorney might get out of it won't be enough to soothe the aggravation and extra work required to deal with such a client.

 

[Terminal1]

Anyway...we have a construction attorney on retainer. Roof is fine. Insurance company took care of that issue. Suing other contractor for 50,000.00 for negligence as the home inspection and civil engineer reports were that everything they did was crap/not to code and they ignored our texts and voicemail so we had to hire 3 other specialty contractors to fix everything. They want to talk about paying us now they received the demand letter from my attorney. Also, yes we can use the video tapes we used of each other calling and leaving the contractor a voicemail, but we will not need to. Everyone has a right to be angry and want to punish someone for harassment. My lawyer agrees. But we are punishing them for being a crap contractor. It only cost me a 3K retainer and the chances of court are low. The contractor does not and said they dont want to have to talk about the harassment publicly. We have decided to use that as leverage to get them to agree to a settlement.

The realtor who suggested them was appalled and fired them from their own home repairs.

Did not have to write a book this time. They filed bankruptcy a few years ago and cannot file again to get out of it.
Actual damages, hole in floor, roof leak, new door broken by faulty install, no header over new door, inadequate flashing, left a hot wire uncovered and cut in my wall leading to fire hazard, totally bombed local code inspection, civil engineer stated that my wall was unstable and they did not sister my joists, they cut a joist almost in two and left it, my tile is uneven, my j channel was too large, they hid some bad work intentionally and was uncovered during insurance repairs from the storm but was unrelated to the storm. There is more but, I would hate to be annoying and vindictive because the creep totally sexually harassed me on top of all that!