The roofing and insurance industries do not consider craze cracking to be a manufacturing defect unless cracks propagate through the mat- called shingle “splitting”- before the warranty period has expired, so they don’t consider craze cracking alone to be a manufacturer’s defect, and here’s why…
Imagine this scenario starting maybe in the mid-1980s:
Lowball manufacturers introduce poor-quality, low-cost shingles to the housing market that look just fine when they’re new. Since they can’t tell about the quality by looking at them, consumers purchase on price alone.
Craze cracking may take 5 years or more to appear, so a market develops…
Craze cracking is connected with the use of excessive amounts of filler in blending the asphalt, and the evaporative loss of volatile compounds from the asphalt surface layer.
It is not an “unintended result of the manufacturing process”, it is low-quality asphalt shingles “performing as designed”.
It’s what happens when a manufacturer reduces the quality of asphalt in order to reduce the cost of producing shingles. Manufacturers do this in order to enter- retain- or increase their share- in the HUGE market for low-cost asphalt shingles.
“Low-cost” and “low-quality” mean the same thing.
If you are a major shingle manufacturer, you either participate in this market, or you surrender a lot of money to your competitors. And for most major shingle manufacturers, surrendering major market share is not part of their plan for success.
So… if you call craze cracking a manufacturing defect, you should be ready to defend your report if the client comes back complaining that their claim was refused because the manufacturer disagreed with the part of your report that identified craze cracking as a manufacturing defect.
Functional Damage either:
- Diminishes the ability of the shingles to shed water, or
- Shortens their long-term service life