I’m sure most of us have been placed in a situation where you have completed a wind mitigation report only to have some of the selections to end up in direct conflict with a previous inspector’s report.
Today I have encountered probably THE worst wind mitigation report I’ve seen to date. I can understand we are all human and might miss something or make a mistake from time to time but this report was borderline fraud.
The previous report was completed in 2008 by a licensed general building contractor. ( I’m debating if I should post his name, company name, and license number and a copy of the report here on the message board) The selections were as follows:
FBC Roof installed 12/2005
8D Deck Fastener spaced at 6/6 Spacing
SWR Peel N Stick Present
Full Hurricane protection for all openings.
I have attached the photos I took from the inspection today as well as put a layout in the file identifying the location and length of each gable.
The roof geometry was not the only issue.
The SWR peel N Stick was never verified by the previous inspector and I observed only standard roofing felt when looking between the joints in the plywood decking.
The deck was fastened using staples. Only where sheets of plywood were replaced was it re-nailed with a 6D nail
Not one hurricane shutter, or hardware used for shutter installation was observed around the openings. The windows and doors are original from 1990 and are not impact rated.
So my question is what should I do about this? This is an obvious case of flat out fraud. Should this be reported or should i just let it go?
Flat out fraud or idiocy. Have seen the same thing and then the insurance co or homeowner thinks you suck. Can get nasty with all parties involved. Not up to me to sort it out just be nice and report the facts. Frustrating when some of those who do these do not keep up with current events.
To quote the movie Frozen, “Let it go”!
If I remember correctly, that would be the 2 page form. Except for the swr, most of that may be correct. Do you have a permit date for the roof?
How do you know the shutters weren’t removed?
Regardless of which form was used the roof geometry should have never been marked as “hip”
The entire left wall of the home is a gable as well as the entire back pop out wall.
The deck fastener is a staple. How do you confuse an 8D nail with a staple?
Eric - there is a roof permit on file with an issue date of 10-28-2005. There is no evidence of shutters ever being installed on the openings. No signs of hardware installation to receive shutters, no panels.
I can see how you might confuse my RTW picture with a hurricane hanger but I assure you it’s a clip. There are two walls that intersect at that location. The fastener is holding the truss on the left to the wall on the right. I have additional photos as well. The truss that appears to be in question is actually bearing on a wall and has a fastener on the opposite side.
Your staple is about an inch and a half away from the truss. If it was right next to it, I might consider it a “shiner” grrrr.
I would get the roof permit and the package that goes with it to see exactly what was used and if the deck was renailed. In Dade and Broward, renailing was required prior to 2005, so it would be an 8D nail, which is usually easy to find.
For the shutters, maybe they were present and stolen or just removed and all the holes patched.
And, as I said, it was from 2008. Who really cares?
I’d fill out “my” form and move on. Personally I don’t care what anyone else prior to me may have done or not done. I’m concerned that my report is correct and that’s where I would leave that. Just my opinion though and I really haven’t the time to police others.
Thanks for all the feedback. I decided to go with the general consensus of letting it go. It was a bit frustrating having to spend ALOT of additional time and at a minimum an hour or so on the phone.
Eric - While on the phone I asked the homeowner if he ever had shutters for the home at any point. His answer was “No”. So the original inspector is clearly going around and intentionally committing fraud on his wind mitigation reports. Or at the very least was back in 2008 when there were no photo requirements. My advice to the homeowner was to turn in my report along with the photos and to make sure the policy he has currently written has the correct wind mitigation credits applied. From our conversation I do not believe that is the course of action he is going to take. Essentially the referring agent who was going to write the policy did not get the business and the homeowner intends to stay where his current policy is written due to the fact that he is currently receiving a large reduction from the erroneous wind mitigation report.
Bradley - I have several other roof to wall photos. I generally try to take 3-4 different RTW photos if possible so I’m not particularly worried should an underwriter raise any questions regarding the roof to wall connection.
Also the roof geometric shape is “gable” if you calculate the rake of the gables or the length of the bottom chord. I have always calculated gables by the length of the bottom chord and not the rake. I will go back through the Nachi wind mit course to verify the correct method of doing this.
I do appreciate all the information though. you guys are always a wealth of information and some of you always offer sound advice.
Now that you have made your decision, in the future, ask your client some specific questions. Inform them that the form has changed, several times, and what may have gotten credit back in whenever, may not get the same credit today.
Also, explain to your clients what they get credit for. There are 7 areas, some eliminated before you even arrive at the home.
I have told some people right off the bat, you may not get any discounts.
Example: Home built in 1987 with the original roof and no hurricane shutters. Also, a gable roof.
Out of the 7 possible areas, you are down to 2, roof to wall and deck nailing.
More than likely, down to one, rtw. And, homes built in the 80s are notorious for having the straps, if they are even present, installed backwards or with only 2 nails.
On stand alone wind mits, the form is almost completely filled out before I get there. I also inform the client that once I arrive, payment is due regardless of what I find.
As for policing the industry, I know of numerous reports that are blatantly fraudulent…not to the advantage of the client though. And, I have never heard of any discipline being dealt out to any inspector. Fraud is very hard to prove, which is why it is rarely ever sought.