Argument with underwriter, who is correct?

So I submitted this:

The underwriters response was this:
The underwriter is not agreeing with the footprint you sent over for Mr. X Wind Mit Inspection. He does not agree with the area that you left out (the porch). The Underwriter feels that the roof on the porch is structurally attached to the rest of the roof. If that is not the case, like you are suggesting, he is requiring photos of the attachment showing that it is not structurally attached to the main roof. Only then will they review it and offer the HIP rating for this home

My response to that statement was this:
The underwriter is incorrect according to the original study conducted by the State of Florida which lead to the My Safe Florida Home and subsequently the wind mitigation forms and credits, Section 1: roof shape, Page 179 (See attachment). “The open gable section is over the front entrance and is not part of the main structure of the house”. In our case, the gable in the picture can be replaced with a flat porch and remain the same determination (front of home & rear of home are interchangeable). So, even if the rear porch is structurally attached it does not matter because there are no exterior walls, and it is not an air conditioned space within the home. Therefore it is not calculated in the overall determination of the hip roof system.

**Along with the response I submitted:
**New Bitmap Image - Copy.jpg

So I come to you, fair and wise judges of the InterNACHI forums and ask, who is correct?

New Bitmap Image - Copy.jpg

Forgot the picture of the rear of the home.

New Bitmap Image - Copy - Copy.jpg

The flat and front count in the calculations. On a further note MSFH is dead. This is a new form and new way of looking at it. All porches count if they are structurally connected. These appear to be from your photos.

Flat roof is structurally attached and counts in the roof calculations.

What counts as a structural connection? Do the 2x4’s making up the flat area have to be bolted into the truss system of the home? What if they are toe nailed into the top plate and just resting beside the truss system for the hip roof.

It appears to me from the picture of the rear roof line that the patio “IS” connected to the roof and not the wall of the house.

Just curious and I hope not to offend but what are your qualifications for doing the inspection?


I do not know if it only is happening to me or not but when I click on you link at the bottom of your message it takes me to the Nachi forum home page.

Licensed residential contractor, I know thats what it looks like from the picture but what constitutes a “structural connection” to the roof, rather than to the wall?

Thanks for the heads up with my link, not sure why that is happening.

The way I look at it is if I can see the wall the porch is attached to above the porches roof line I say it is attached to the face of the wall and does not count. When it blends into the roof as in your second picture I call it as connected to the main roof system. If you would like some example photos I can send them to you when I return to the office.

Yes, they both count. The underwriter is right.

Underwriter: 1 Inspector: 0

Porches or carports that are attached only to the fascia or wall of the host structure and not structurally connected to the main roof system are not considered in the roof geometry determination

That means if it is enclosed and used as a roof it counts even if it is not connected structurally.

Look through the wind mit scenarios on this section of the board.

Check out my blog at


I think that once you start to argue with an underwriter that you have lost. There is nothing to argue about. The final decision is theirs. All you can do is point out the facts and let the chips fall where they may.

I always wondered how someone could screw up a wind mit and where all of the so called fraud came from,now I understand. This whole mess will never be straighten out until there is a written set of guidelines that everyone must follow.

Concur with Greg 100%. So, in the meantime follow the question and get the best answer you can provide. If there is a question it will come back to you. Arguing with the underwriter is a loose battle](*,). They will do whatever is more convenience for them. Besides they are on the driver’s seat.:roll:

I disagree you can argue with the underwriters and even the fraud departments. You just better be right 100%. I have argued several and won, If there is any doubt as the others said they are in the driver’s seat

I think a logical way to look at this is if the flat roof structure was to be lifted off by storm winds would it also remove the tie in to the other (main) roof structure. No doubt in this case it would. Have to side with the underwriter. Also I have no doubt why they argued with this there is a substantial discount between the hip roof classification and a flat roof. I would also argue that your math including the interior perimeters of the flat roof in the total calculations of linear footage for gable end computations is also incorrect.

This exterior area is not enclosed.

I am still wondering what “structural connection” exactly means. What if the 2x4’s of this flat area are resting on top of the wall beside the trusses for the roof system? See crude paint sketch (top down view).

To me this would be attached to the “wall of the host structure” and not “structurally connected to the main roofing system”. You would need some kind of connection between the flat area’s trusses and the hip area’s trusses to call it structurally connected. I do not think if the flat area were ripped off in a storm that the hip area would have to go with it.