I guess it has come time to interpret the meanings of the new form.
Can we start with question 2 please?
Answer A. states: [FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][size=2]
All roof coverings listed above meet the FBC with a FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of
installation OR have a roofing permit application date on or after 3/1/02 OR the roof is original and built in 2004 or later.
In current training we are told that to meet the FBC you MUST have a permit application date on or after 3/1/02. How do you state that the covering meets the FBC with a FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at the time of installation when the FBC did not exist prior to that time?
Are they saying that, for instance, Joe Roofing Company installed a Timberline 30 shingle roof 2/2004 without pulling a permit. Timberline 30 shingles does, in fact, have a Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current in 2004 - Therefore the roof covering meets the requirement of answer A?
[/size][/FONT][/size][/FONT]
In my scenario the Timberline 30 DOES have a product approval code - Just not a permit issue date. Is the receipt showing the Timberline 30 shingles sufficient - since it is OR permit application date?
Or…What if it has a permit application date of 2/2004 - but no inspections - Is it assumed that the permit must have a final approval, or just have been applied for?
And what about the old metal patio roof that has been there forever? That would do away with any credits that might have been received for the new roof that covers 100% of heated space.
Looks to me like its going to get real hard to get the Roof Covering credit going forward - All those patios…Ain’t Florida living grand?!
You have to realize that in Post Hurricane ravaged areas and in rural areas (as noted at an earlier OIR meeting) many roofs are put on without a permit. This is an attempt to get people credit where it was not possible before. Just document the evidence for the client.
This change should positively impact many of my clients whose post hurricane roof was put on without a permit.
I get that Jay - And I can see that many would benefit - when considering predominant roof coverings.
Here in the Tampa area however, we have not been storm ravaged - and I see the new requirements that consider ALL roof covers - (and the form does not even discount the patios and carports that are not structurally attached like with the roof shape question). I think that we could experience the reverse - many who should be eligible for the credit are going to miss out because of secondary roof structures that cannot be documented.
You can’t. The older roof may not be nailed down as required, even if the shingles met the miami-dade standards it would be immpossible to determine nail spacing (to the satisfaction of an underwriter) on any roof that lacked a permit.
I can’t even blame the insurers the incidence of fraud and percentage of fraudulent reports is over 50%. People are going to go down there will be 1/2 as many inspectors in 3 years.
Yes, Mr. Meeker, we all understand your gripes and complaints - But must every thread be your avenue to vent?
Can we have some serious discussions on the issues involved with completing the new form?
Without guidance - whether or not you agreed with what Bill York, or whoever was presenting the training materials, it did provide a basis for some level of consistency across the industry. We need to get on the same page instead of everybody running willy/nilly with their own interpretations - That will just cause greater confusion and an even stronger basis for the insurance companies to point at the inspections and cry foul!
I sincerely hope some level of formal education on the new requirements is forthcoming as quick as the new form!
I see your point. Not sure how it will play out.
The typical situation, will be a flat or low slope patio/carport attached to a Shingle/Metal/Tiled roof. They may be using the Roof Shape to determine if the roofs in question will be credit worthy. I’m surprised that an estimated percentage of roof types is not required. Either way, there is a great deal of ambiguity in the new form.
Much will be left up to the interputation of the underwriters.