Did a Wind Mit yesterday. The customer had a previous wind mit that showed the home as a hip. The home is hip all around except for a small gable over the entry and two small non hip areas to either side of the entry. These areas only face each other and would not be visible if looked at from the side.
If I count the two small non hip areas, the home does not qualify as a hip. I feel that they need to be considered but wanted to make sure I am looking at it correctly. What do you think?
Post your sketch with the measurements
Yes it is MY OPINION that those MUST be included.
Too bad so sad 
Yes, the small rakes at the entry are non-hip. If that is it for non-hip, I bet I can make that roof work as a hip…
Total perimeter was 197 feet. The gable at the top was 11 feet. Each small non hip area was 6 feet on each side of the entry. That is 23 feet non hip and 197 total. If you have a way to make that work, I would love to hear it.
Email me the footprint sketch. I’ll update it…I have ways.:twisted:
Please post the footprint sketch.
REALLY :shock: Either it is or it isn’t??? We should not be in the business of making something work.
Just my humble opinion…
In our eyes and by the guidelines of the program this is a non-hip sorry ;0( For those playing games to make it work, we look forward to doing a re-inspection thanks for the business. Lol
Try factoring in the overhang rake for the soffits if you’re using the property appraiser footprint. If its a foot and a half overhang, you gain 3 feet each linear run, you’re gaining at least 18 feet just off that photo. Just make sure you document that somewhere on the form or add a comment page.
Exactly, so… Post the actual measurement sketch please
Exactly. I bet lots of unknowing homeowners have missed out on a HIP rating due to this.
Bert
In the best interest of the client being the homeowner we should always exhaust all means to prove one way or the other. What’s worse is correcting a re inspect that was horribly wrong. You call it playing games when insurance companies are digging into pockets and gladly when it rules in their favor. Personally glad to see inspectors going the extra mile to make sure every inch is accounted for. We don’t make the rules just play the game and inches are money. Thanks for playing!
No games here Joe. I do go by the guidelines, and I was a reinspector. I just need the footprint sketch and elevation photos to show it.
No, you gain six feet total. Not enough. You need 231 perimeter feet for this to work.
Added with edit:
I was referring to the total perimeter of a square building. 200 feet on a sketch and adding in the overhang on all four sides will give you 206 total. You may have slightly more on certain houses, but on this house, you need 34 more feet.
If you are uncertain of the status, hip vs non-hip, measure it while there.
I am forced to agree with Mike here. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
WoHooooo 
Here is the diagram I drew when I measured the home. I measured at the roof line as I always do and not at the walls of the home. The diagonal lines indicate non hip areas. I am reposting a photo of the front of the home. All other areas were hip.
I double checked and the total is 196 not 197 as I said in my earlier post. I see no way to call this a hip. I just threw out the question because his earlier wind mit showed it as a hip and, although I felt I was looking at it correctly, I wanted to get feedback to make sure before I took away the hip discount.
If anyone sees a way to call this a hip, I would be happy to listen to your argument. I hate being the bad guy.
Why would someone risk their reputation on lies? We get referrals because we do it right. I have no problem sharing my drawings(many are included in the report) to prove someone wrong. It is what it is.
IMO it looks like there is three areas (1or 2 feet each at the bottom of the three valleys) which would add to hip not included in your drawing, as well as a foot or two of gable on the side of the garage in front of the front door. But … Still… C other roof.
