Insurance Journal - Florida Adjusters Opinion on Solving Roof Crisis

[marindependent]

Great opinion piece about Florida's Property Roof Insurance problem and how to Solve it.

Want to Limit Roof Claims in Florida? Why Not a Roof Endorsement?
May 15, 2023
By Ben Mandell

"There is one glaring endorsement that is missing. That is a roof endorsement. As a field adjuster, I have recommended this endorsement for the past several years. It’s really just common sense. "

"My belief is that a Florida policy should contain a roof endorsement that provides for a maximum amount of coverage. As an example, the Roof Endorsement coverage could be $20,000. That would be the maximum a policyholder could receive if their roof were damaged. If the policyholder wants more coverage, then they could purchase more roof coverage for an additional premium. If the policyholder needs $30,000 of protection, then they could purchase an extra $10,000 worth of coverage for the roof."

What do you guys think? Will this work to solve the Florida Home Insurance problem?

 

[Al3x Lee]

My vote is that we exile Florida from the United States completely. It can become its own tropical country.

I also think we bar US insurers from doing business there, that way there's no way for our rates to be impacted by their losses.

Lastly and most importantly, we can build a great wall to keep the Floridians out of the mainland US without proper authorization.

 

[Allen Trent]

Realistically, roof should be ACV. Been seeing hail storm chasing shady roof companies going to subdivisions built 16-24 years ago to get free new roof that was already in need of replacement, but not going to brand new built houses or those in old home areas. A roof, like a car, depreciates steadily, roof replacement cost really shouldnt be a home insurance claim. IMHO

 

[scagnt83]

Realistically, roof should be ACV. Been seeing hail storm chasing shady roof companies going to subdivisions built 16-24 years ago to get free new roof that was already in need of replacement, but not going to brand new built houses or those in old home areas. A roof, like a car, depreciates steadily, roof replacement cost really shouldnt be a home insurance claim. IMHO

So you feel its more of a home warranty item?

I get the whole "it hailed on my old roof so now I want a new one". Insurance probably does pay out too much in those situations, I've benefited from that personally so I know the numbers involved. The whole pitch was essentially a "free" roof when mine was 15+years old. And it was a reputable local company.

But what about a true storm that rips off part of it? There has to be a line somewhere, even with an old roof... if it wasnt leaking before the storm... now its leaking.... its damage. Sure it was more susceptible to the damage, but its still damage.

 

[scagnt83]

What do you guys think? Will this work to solve the Florida Home Insurance problem?

Building codes with some teeth to them is the only way to solve it.

They are and always have allowed shoddy construction considering the elements down there. On top of building and over building in areas they shouldnt.

But $$$ makes the rules, and stronger buildings cost more money and hit profit margins harder. Since people "traditionally" didnt pay extra for a storm proof home or building, they paid extra for it to look fancy, so building strength was never a priority.... "the owners have insurance"...

There were buildings and houses that withstood Cat 5 hurricanes with minimal damage, its not by accident.

Stronger buildings mean less insurance claims. At minimum, they could mandate metal roofs of a certain grade on all homes.

 

[Allen Trent]

So you feel its more of a home warranty item?

I get the whole "it hailed on my old roof so now I want a new one". Insurance probably does pay out too much in those situations, I've benefited from that personally so I know the numbers involved. The whole pitch was essentially a "free" roof when mine was 15+years old. And it was a reputable local company.

But what about a true storm that rips off part of it? There has to be a line somewhere, even with an old roof... if it wasnt leaking before the storm... now its leaking.... its damage. Sure it was more susceptible to the damage, but its still damage.

Yes, most shingles last 17-20 years, meaning if a storm blows off a roof at year 15 & you get a new for old, you are getting 20 free years of shingles at no cost. With car claims, you don't get the full cost of new tires if you are 60,000 miles into 50,000 mile tires. New for old is providing betterment & not putting you back in same position you were before. You are getting out of paying for a known expected maintenance cost.

Similar items in a home might be carpet, furnace, AC that have an expected depreciation where you will need to replace as a maintenance item (I have a 16 year old higher end home & just had new furnace & AC installed, on 3rd water heater, likely need new roof in 3-5 years) those type of items if always covered by a home insurance as new for old cost all consumers in higher premiums. My problem with the roof companies I see in Michigan is they are defacto redlining & discriminating. they are marketing & putting new roofs on million dollar & lake homes on houses built 15-20 years ago, but never see their signs in the inner city homes that had a direct hit from the actual large hail. How can hail that didnt damage my leaves on my trees or my plastic deck railing have damaged a roof. During Covid, insurance carrier adjusters were not inspecting (or getting kickbacks) & $25,000 to $50,000 roofs being put on at no cost & the roofing company even marketed that they would cover the deductible if they were allowed to put a sign in the yard of the house about the insurance company paying for it. Insurance commissioners should be investigating more for the discriminatory practice, etc.

Now-- for other items on a house that dont depreciate as much like your framing & drywall, etc, etc I see no reason they shouldnt be at replacement costs. But appliances with a 5-10 year life expectancy & carpet/roof with a 15-20 year lifespan, I think those should be discounted as an expected depreciated maintenance cost. But no carriers want to be the 1st to push that & they really dont mind paying replacement cost I bet if they are charging for it, especially when it is legitimate claims. The roof hail damage seems to be much more prone to fraud as it is hard to prove or widespread that adjusters cant get to all quick enough