Documentation for Wind Mitigations

How much are you involving yourself in justifying or “approving” of documentation to qualify for Wind Mitigation Rating.

Scenario: Client has a new Sunroom addition recently added (2012); Room is added without the benefit of a permit. The Wind Mitigation form allows for a a Roof Covering rating of A. if the roof covering listed has a Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of installation. (No permit requirement)

Client provides a hand written document on blank paper (no letterhead) with a hand written company name signed by a “Project Manager” Said document lists the address and the product name and FL #.

Are we accountable for verifying that the documentation is valid and that the client is not attempting to fraudulently obtain discounts to which he is not entitled? Or are we facilitating gathering information for the client and not responsible for the authenticity of the documentation?

Question: Do you
a.) Reject the documentation as being insufficient and give the Roof Covering a rating of “C. One of more roof coverings do not meet…” and check the "No information Provided for Compliance. (Main roof was installed with a valid permit 2007)

b.)Accept the documentation as valid and submit it with a rating of A. for the roof covering without questioning the integrity of the client.

In order for the PA# or FBC or MDC approvals to be valid there needs to be a “verifiable installation date recorded”. That is basically the only way to comply with the PA# is valid at time of installation. Does “recorded” mean “permitted”? That could be. Does the clients or homeowners handwritten for have a date of installation along with the PA #? If so, and this is just me, I would submit that in whatever form it is in and allow the underwriter for the insurance company formulate their own decision. That’s just me though and everyone may view it differently. Of course I would make it clear to the homeowner that there’s a good chance it will be rejected. It is an interesting scenario and I’m sure there’s someone here who has already dealt with it before and will most likely trump everything I just said. But a least that’s my take at this moment.


That’s my thinking as well Bert. But, no the “documentation” is not dated - I have asked the client for additional information to better their chances of success, but I am warning them of the likely outcome.

I would be interested to see how others approach this scenario as well - Knowing that some opinions I will take with a grain of salt and others will tend to get more heavily weighted.

Thanks for your input.

If you are talking about a fully glazed roof for the sunroom, this would fall under the Opening Protection section, and left out of the Roof Covering section (I’ve handled this many times this way). What does the FL# tell you about the product?

It’s an Aluminum Pan roof - I believe it is an approved product, the question lies in the poor documentation and how you would justify what selection is made on the form.

I fixed your statement. :smiley:

If you are specifically talking about the roof covering, I would ask for the FL# and look it up. Then, depending on what that said, I would mark it as A) and provide a picture of the document as well as the roof. I would inform the client, that he needs to get some better documentation and that it probably will get thrown out. I would also inform him that having non-permitted work on the property may present a bigger problem down the road.

If I understand this correctly it is not structurally attached and probably not covered under the policy without a rider. You maybe able to ignore it altogether.
Now if they removed an inner door and have made it air conditioned space they may have other issues and it will need to be considered.

A handwritten note without a letterhead will never work with me. Try receipts for purchase or a statement with an appropriate contractor’s license number.

I agree, the approval must be tied to the product with manufacturer label or other documentation that shows the installation address (and date)…not just someone else saying so in a letter. Also, Citizens considers a (glazed) sunroom as an ENCLOSED porch (heated or not). This roof would have to be included in Roof Covering and Roof Geometry.


Depends on how much you trust what your client is telling you. I have done both for different clients at different times. Are you willing to fight for their discount with sub par documentation? The way you described everything, I personally would go with option 1 unless they can come up with better documentation that has a date of installation.

All good points - I appreciate the distinction Eric made regarding the requirement of a permit.

The roof is indeed over enclosed space - so it should, in fact, be considered.

I am trying to get the client request a more professional statement in regards to the installation. The “documentation” is attributed to a Corporation that is registered with the state of Florida, and the signer is registered as an officer of said company - although he does not possess a license in Florida.

I also do not believe that I will question the integrity of the client or installer and not make a judgement call as to the accuracy or appropriateness of the documentation offered (Although I am going to try to improve their success by suggesting that better documentation be obtained). It will be up to the underwriter - and I’m not sure which one it is - make the final determination as to credits being granted.

Let me ponder this? Would I take documentation from either a contractor that is not licensed or a contractor performing work with out obtaining the required permit for the work? No in both cases.
The only reason for not obtaining a permit is that some portion of the assembly would not comply with current codes and or N.O.A.

I think we are on to two different issues. Permitting, which is irrelevant, at least per the form, and the presence of a valid noa or fl number.

If the number is valid for the product, then there is nothing stopping you from putting it on the form…
The question may come later from the underwriter, “do we have any other documentation for this”? At which point, they probably will remove the credit.

I know what the intent is and all of that, but the form asks for one of three ways to determine if the credit is given. If you can answer one of the questions, and in this case, it will be two, the noa number and a sketchy date of installation, what happens next really isn’t my concern.

I would simply inform my client, here is what you gave me, it goes on the form. You may be asked for more information to back this up. I suggest you obtain it.

I happen to agree with Eric on this issue - As for permitting - I have seen MANY roofs installed without a permit - by MANY reputable roofing contractors.

All sunrooms are required to be designed and approved by a licensed professional. While differant components of the system may have product approvals it must be drawn and calculated as an assembly and to include the size of footing, reinforcement and such.
This is not like looking at a roof covering (shingle) that may not have been permitted, but has a left over bundle in the garage that identifies the NOA and that the fasteners are able to be verified in the attic as compiling with the requirements of the acceptance.
IMHO we are mixing apples and oranges

The verbiage below has been copied directly from a Roof Panel product approval

“Product Approval is limited to the components tested and reported within the Terrapin Testing, inc. reports included with this application. Roof Panels are limited to ““non-habitable”” patio cover systems. Site specific engineering shall be provided for all installations to determine the connection requirements of the roof panels and for determination of applied loads to the roof panels. Panels shall not be used in High Velocity Hurricane Zones (HVHZ). Materials used for the construction of laminated sandwich panels shall be limited to those listed in the Quality Control Manual.”

I understand what you are saying, but the form doesn’t ask for any of that.
Now…an underwriter might… :mrgreen:

This is correct. The same goes for aluminum structures, which are engineered as a single assembly. Very rarely do you get a separate roof permit for one of these structures unless it is a re-roof.

The policyholder screwed up by allowing this structure to be non-permitted, and I would be hard pressed to give it my blessing without a full set of supporting docs. The best I could do is list the year of installation on the form and mark “C”.

So if you come to a home with a new roof on it, parts over an addition, are you going to ask for permits for the addition as well?

I am using that example as it happened Friday. I inspected a home for the clients 2 years ago and they added two additions and replaced the roof over the whole home. Should I have asked for all of the permits for the addition, including plumbing, electric, etc…just to fill out the roof portion of the wind mit form?
They had all of the permits as it was a million dollar home, but it isn’t my concern what permits were pulled, with the exception of the roof permit.

Again, the form doesn’t ask if the structure was permitted, at least pertaining to the roof covering.

I tried to explain it for this example, but obviously you did not comprende. Re-think it…

You can take the condescending tone and shove it up your ***.

The form doesn’t ask for any spurious details.

It asks for either a permit application date, a noa number or an installation date.

If you have any one of those, it is now out of your hands.