Declaratory Statement – Roof covering whether Tile Or Shingle is considered Primary

I didnt realize there was an swr debate. Peal and stick right on the deck or foamseal. Whats the question?

I also thought like you but I think I must have missed something in his statement.

I am only concerned with the validity of ANY statement from them or any group like them and again it is NOT personal just a legal questing.

The debate is, does a tile roof with a peel and stick qualify as a SWR?

The tile is not “water proof” so the P&S is a primary water barrier, unlike on a shingle roof. The form specifically states as a “applied as a supplemental means to protect the dwelling from water intrusion in the event of roof covering loss” The question is: Is peel and stick on a tile roof a supplemental means or a primary?

Some “authorities” say it does and some say it does not qualify as a SWR on the 1802.

I asked some underwriters, and they debated it among themselves and stated that they would give the credit.
I will be including this in the new wind mit class I am now working on for Orlando conference.

What Mike fails to understand, some authorities, allow or disallow the credits based on their interpretation, I am simply relaying the information and including it in my classes. He wants final decisions on the form and that will never happen because of the governmental process. It will continue to be debated and lobbied for and against until a final authority is appointed or the form is dismissed.

Is the peel and stick the only underlayment under the tile outside the hvhz? And, is this counted as swr as per fbc or the roofing contract?

What John fails to understand is that they “underwriters” are not authorities the OIR is regarding what gets discounts and what does not. They may be “playing authorities” but I do not fee they are. I can’t see how it would hurt a client so that is good I just do not feel the way the info is being presented and then going to be taught as fact is correct.

au·thor·i·ty
əˈTHôritē,ôˈTHär-/Submit
noun
plural noun: authorities
1.
the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.
“he had absolute authority over his subordinates”
synonyms: power, jurisdiction, command, control, charge, dominance, rule, sovereignty, supremacy; More
the right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another.
“military forces have the legal authority to arrest drug traffickers”
synonyms: authorization, right, power, mandate, prerogative, license, permission More
official permission; sanction.
“the money was spent without congressional authority”
2.
a person or organization having power or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere.
“the health authorities”
synonyms: officials, officialdom; government, administration, establishment; police; informalthe powers that be
“they failed to report the theft to the authorities”

Outside the hvhz. You know that the FBC and MDBC require a SWR differently then the 1802 form, hence the confusion.

If you would have called me like I suggested you might actually understand.

So Mike does not like my choice of words, sorry. Tell me what you would like to call the thread and the “leaders” that I had contact with.

They are not leaders of anything? They are simply underwriters of one or more insurance companies.

If it had personally just mattered to me I would have called and appreciate the offer. I just want the info out there for all to know.

There is certain things that I will never post here.

I understand that and feel the same way. My only point was with the wording and all is sounded like something OFFICIAL from the state or someone with authority over all people involved, like the OIR. From what I now understand is is the combined opinion of you and a few underwriters. Is that accurate?

I don’t think there will ever be a “declaratory statement” from the OIR. They have never acted in that capacity on the 1802. I remember everybody accepting Bill York’s interpretations of the 1802 as gospel, and finally the answer was to redesign the form to clarify some of his missteps…remember the 3+1 nailing on the straps?

Who else is going to unify the 1802 standards other than the underwriters and top inspector companies. Somebody has to nail down how to handle the more common gray areas that are not spelled out on the 1802. My question is when an “authority” makes this kind of statement, is it shared throughout the insurance community, or does it just remain an internal guideline?

It remains up to each inspector to interpret it in their own way. I never accepted York as gospel either. It is only his opinions ans we all know what opinions are like.

I am just saying A Top Inspector a Few Underwriters HAVE THE RIGHT to make any decisions. It is just the way it is.

Maybe if they all quit giving opinions and guessing how things should be and EVERYONE put pressure on the OIR something would get done.

Again I believe John has everyone’s “even mine” best interests at heart he just does not have the AUTHORITY to make the rules.

That is NOT the intent of filling out the 1802. It is, or it isn’t compliant with the questions. The gray areas need to be addressed, and there are bigger ones than whether tile underlayment is a supplementary water barrier or not. How about this one…how many inspectors also include the flat roof over an enclosed porch for self-adhered SWR considerations for the 1802?

The only authority I have is that over the classes that I give. The only authority that an underwriter has is that of the policies he/she over sees.

Bradley is correct somebody has to clarify, collect and solidify these answers. I have tried to do it over many years through many changes and many opinions. I would love for someone to write a set of definitive answers, that can be refereed to.

When inspectors were charged hundreds of dollars to learn some basic information important to doing inspections in Florida he asked me to write the class and gave it away for free. I traveled the state showing inspectors what I knew and made nothing. Without inspectors having some sort of education on the subject the reports become erratic.

What are you going to tell your client when a claim is denied or reduced because they were not paying a premium they should have because of your interpretation of the form? When your clients find out that they should have received a discount that you did not mark on the form what are you going to say? I prefer to research, evaluate, discuss and share that information. I prefer to try to make the profession better even while you rather see it be inconsistent.

You are incorrect.

I want exact answers by those whose job it is to provide them. The OIR must be made to say what equals what as long as they are writing the form.

If not then let the insurance companies each make up their own and have their own guys do the inspections to their standards.

That is what I would do if I were an insurance company and was ALLOWED to do so.

I’ve never really had an issue with this one other than explaining why people are not getting it in the hvhz when they paid extra and it says swr on the permit docs. So stupid, they should bag it , like they did gable bracing.

I think anyone with a peel and stick should get it. I really do not understand why the SFBC would want it over felt. I talked to someone the other day and the package said it must be adhered to the roof decking, attaching to any other roofing material was not permitted.

You are missing the point, there is nobody there who has a job to provide the answers. They were required to make the form only. I am not sure how you can make a form that fits every situation, construction widely varies, just like peoples opinions. Like many rules/laws they are either amended or hashed out in the courts before there is definitive answers. Until then there is interpretations.

The studies that were used to make the form was based on certain criteria and even those studies do not cover many of the situations we come across.
The answer would be to fund more studies and then make more interpretations or allow the insurance companies to decide(or interpret the data).

All inspectors can only do their best with information they have, which is my goal. If I find(believe) I am wrong, I update the info, what else could we do? Should we lobby to have more studies and a person deciding on how all should fill-out the form?

I think there was a group of roofing contractors who lobbied for the acceptance of peel and stick over felt (a.k.a- slip sheet). Have you ever tried to remove a full peel and stick from a roof deck? Apparently, it is very difficult and often times destroys the roof decking during the removal. Consequently, a group of roofing contractors advocated for a “slip sheet” under the peel and stick to allow for easier roof replacements without having to destroy the roof deck.- Or so I have been told.

The mfg rep told me that ice and water shield was not guaranteed if hot asphalt was installed over it. Even if tar paper was placed over it and then hot asphalt. Not even in 6" wide strips.
Maybe, now that concrete tiles are being installed with foam adhesive rather than nails, The concrete tiles becomes the primary roofing and the multi-ply hot applied becomes the secondary waterproofing membrane.
Just a thought