Did a full inspection for a client last week. The home has a large unpermitted flat roof addition, and yes it is under air. I told the client to ask his insurance agent before purchasing the wind mit because I didn’t want to rip him off. Both the flat roof and shingle roof are new enough for the covering credit but in my opinion that’s it. The visible portion of the roof showed two nail connectors anyhow and although I didn’t measure the nailing pattern they look 6d. I called it as “No Attic Access” and put a note that there is a flat roof addition. The agent said he’s never seen this before. He also said he’s never in all his years seen a wind mitigation with just the covering credit, then got mad that I wouldn’t change the form and hung up. He said in the insurance world they just want to know what the majority of the roof attachment is. Am I crazy?? “Weakest” attachment includes all right? I’ve always included all that is structurally attached just as you do for the hip credit.
If you have that in writing file a complaint with the OIR for the agent committing insurance fraud
Thank you for the reply. Just to clarify I am supposed to verify all connections right? Even a porch if it’s structurally attached to my understanding. Of course common sense comes into play if it’s an original porch and design doesn’t allow access.
Matt, the mitigation form does not ask for an opinion if previous remodels were permitted. It asks for verification of roof covering updates. It asks for verification of the weakest form of attachment, for all visible metal connectors. Visible being the keyword. Per your post the coverings were permitted and finaled, but since the addition wasn’t permitted, in your opinion, you decided to mark no attic access. Then you mention if it was an original flat roof, with no attic access, you’d use common sense, and document the visible metal connectors you observed? My apologies if this is not what you’re trying to convey in your post, that’s how I’m reading it. I’d stick to the facts and document what you’ve observed in the accessible attic space.
This is where I struggle with wind mitigation. If the readily apparent visible features are compliant, I’m sure you could dig enough to fail most any roof. Where do you stop? The form asks weakest but surely nobody check each strap.
What I was trying to convey is what I think Michael means. There is no way to see every strap or clip in a roof. You just have to use common sense for areas that are not accessible. But I only do this for homes that don’t have additions. I didn’t mean flat roofs are assumed, what I meant is areas that are not accessible due to design of the attic are assumed to be the same if the house was built as a whole. A flat roof addition was not built with the rest of the roof and construction methods cannot be assumed. Am I wrong in this? If the “majority” of the roof is straps are you saying that is what should be checked on the form? Just curious if I am wrong here. And I did give them the covering credit, but not the roof deck and roof to wall.
Just my opinion here Matt but I think you were wrong on this one. You keep referring to common sense here. We’re just dumb home inspectors, don’t forget that. I’m acting as a home inspector. Not a builder, engineer, or psychic. I don’t assume anything in regards to the roof. I report the Visible connectors. We don’t give credits to homeowners, insurance companies do that.
A quick question, i have looked through the form completely and can’t find the word “visible” as you have mentioned. The form is titled VERIFICATION, the definition of the word states the process of verifying the truth, accuracy, or validity of something.
But, you are listed on that form with those individuals as quilified, are you saying an 1802 performed by and Engineer would be different than a 1802 performed by a HI? Where do you see that information listed? Nobody forces HI’s to perform 1802’s, you volunatrily take that responsibilioty upon yourself.
If you are syaing you perform this inspection differently than the others listed on the form as quilified, that’s a problem.
Not discounting anything the original poster is saying but there are two sides to every story and sometimes three. Sometimes thing may come out wrong not understood the right way. If you are not a lawyer gathering facts why are you dispensing legal advice?
Who’s dispensing legal advise? What that insurance agent said looks like inappropriate activity and possibly infringing on fraud by asking the inspector to do something he thinks is wrong. Seeing as no one on this board is been able to answer his question why not file a complaint and let the OIR answer the question and then we will all know the answer
[size=2][FONT=Times New Roman]61-30.602 Disciplinary Guidelines.
[/FONT][/size][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]*(1) Whenever the department finds a licensee in violation of a provision of Chapter 455 or 468, Part XV, F.S., the following **Disciplinary Guidelines shall be followed. The verbal identification of offenses are descriptive only; the full language of each *statutory provision cited must be consulted in order to determine the conduct included:
[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2](a) Section 468.832(1)(a), F.S. [FONT=Times New Roman][size=2][FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]Violation of any provision of Chapter 468, Part XV or Section 455.227(1), F.S.[/size][/size][/size][/size][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2]455.227 Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement.— (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:[/size][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][size=2](i) Failing to report to the department any person who the licensee knows is in violation of this chapter, the chapter regulating the alleged violator, or the rules of the department or the board.[/size][/FONT]
Paul. Just to clarify. You would have checked off with clips even though you had no clue or are you saying you verify all clips and nails in every area of a home? If that is the case how do you address areas full of insulation covering them all?
You did the right thing. Remember, you are listed on that form with Architects, Engineers, Building code Officials, and Division 1 Contractors. Any assumption, and they are “assumptions”, that state you somehow are not required to operate or complete that from to the same level they would are unsubstatiated and just plain wrong.
Matt. Based on your post I would’ve checked toenail(you mentioned two nails). You’re right I have no clue what’s installed at inaccessible portions of attic space. I inspect the Visible connectors. When’s the last time you walked an attic over a flat roof? Visible means the connectors you can access and see. Do you get it?
Isn’t it a huge liability to check clips if the original portion happened to be clips? If the flat roof was pulled off a week later by a storm and had toe nails or no connectors at all wouldn’t that open me up?
Look at it like this, the form states you must submit information to validate each attribute. If you could prove compliance, through calcualtion that the structure although built previous to the 1994sfbc or 2001 fbc, could meet the uplift as stated in ASCE-7 when factored across sustained wind-speed to V3sg…wouldn’t you? Shouldn’t you?
Don’t twist my words. I’m not saying any of that. I’m simply saying this is an inspection of the visible components on that day. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, engineer, or architect to compete this inspection, which is why none of these professionals pursue this line of work. Do the inspection pursuant to the form. Section 4 references visible metal connectors.
Persuant to attributes B, C, or D. Which he could not verify.
Paul, not trying to twist your words, trying to show you what this form is. You are listed on that form with those individuals, trying to state they would complete it differently than you would is dangerous. No place on the form does it state the different individuals qualified to complete the form would complete it differntly or to a different standard.
The only thing that limits you is your own personal knowledge, and this is stated clearly in your Administrative Code 61-30.