The current form asks about Predominate Roof Cover - the new form specifically states “all roof covering types in use” and that “all roof coverings listed above meet the FBC with a FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval listing”
Are you planning on not itemizing ALL ROOF COVERINGS?
Metal/liento roofs are not considered roofs.
Metal patio roofs are NOT ROOFS?
OK, how are you planning on handling Modified Butimen carport or patio roofs - surely THEY are roofs?
How ever the forms dictate…and don’t call me “Shirley”!:mrgreen:
Just to be clear, the metal roofs I am talking about are the ones over screen enclosures which are not attached to the main roof. The metal roofs that are used on the main roof will be on the form.
If not, anyone with a screened in patio that has a metal roof will not get any discounts because none of those are ever permitted!
Also, the form says this: Select all roof covering types in use.
The metal roofs or leinto roofs don’t really have a “covering”.
Hmmm, interesting take…
Somehow I am afraid that the underwriting department might not see that nuance. And I’m afraid that would cost a lot of customers some discounts.
I wonder if on the Legislative Tour - that we can get some push to make a determination that the same exclusion for Roof Geometry - (Do not consider roofs or porches thatt are attached onlyu to the faxcia or wall of the host structure over unenclosed space in the determination of roof parimeter or roof area for roof geometry classification) - Can be applied to question 2 as well.
Even so, lots of discounts will be lost to secondary metal and roll roof products that are not part of the recent permit and the invoices cannot be produced to document the materials used and an appropriate Product Approval listing to be identified.
On a seperate front - Do you agree that the new Roof Covering definition would seem to allow a answer of A without a permit if documentation of the materials used is available (valid receipt) since the answer includes “OR have a roofing permit application date of…”
It would seem that if I can document, say, Timberline 30 shingles (quite common) and I know that these shingles do, in fact, have a valid Approval Listing I would be able to say that the answer is A - even without a valid permit.
you have to wait till bill york, inspection depot, and citizens all decide which interpretations are acceptable
Here is what the form says:
1)Provide the permit application date OR
2) FBC/MDC Product Approval number OR
3)Year of Original Installation/Replacement Or
4) indicate that no information was available to verify compliance for each roof covering identified.
If the roof has no permit, then, 1 is out.
Anyone can run to the store and grab a bundle of shingles, show the number, the helpful inspector will take a picture of the bundle and include it in the report, so now we have 2 covered which is all that is needed.
Or means one of the four choices. We have proof of number 2, which is all that is required.
Had the form designers said 2 and 3 must be together, then proof of installation would be required.
Speaking of that, who is to say that a homeowner couldn’t fabricate an invoice stating that the roof was installed in 2006? Show that to the inspector and now, number 3 is covered.
Back to the original issue, a metal roof that is over say a screened patio and attached to the fascia, would probably be considered, from an insurance stand point, the same as a screen enclosure… which are no longer covered.
The form, since they decided to go this route, should have stated “Roof covering over the living space of the home, excluding patio, porches, etc.,that are not tied in to the main roof structure”.
They will probably make a change again in six months when there is a new form…just to keep everyone confused and then state that the discounts will be eliminated… which is all part of the grand scheme anyway.
Yep, that’s the root of my problem - the form SHOULD have stated…But it doesn’t. I would ask that the Legislative Group get a determination out of this - either through acquiescence of the powers that be at the underwriting class (fat chance) or through any approved training that the underwriters will accept.
As for the Year of Installation - that may be determined, but I would think without some documentation as to WHAT was installed (By brand and model or type - Say Timberline 30, you would have a hard time proving that it meets some Product Approval standard. In any event in our area it would have to be after 3/1/2002 when the code changed from 60mph shingles to 110 mph so as to meet the FBC.
I suspect, that what is going to happen, is that little caveat’ about “requesting further documentation” is going to require permitting if the permit number isn’t filled in on the form.
[quote=“dbonner, post:46, topic:64765”]
you have to wait till bill york, inspection depot, and citizens all decide which interpretations are acceptable/QU
Interpretation acceptable and price mark…earlier this week I got a call from inspection depot and they offered me “Lots of inspections” at $45
[quote=“wross, post:50, topic:64765”]
Net? :mrgreen:
[quote=“wross, post:50, topic:64765”]
Just think spend all you money jumping thru their hoops and peeing in cups for the right to be their slave. Then you get some moron reviewing you work and telling you what is wrong. Then you go back on your dime then you have to wait to get paid. Etc… No way not now. Times are tough but not that tough.
These issues and others regarding the continued confusion and improper/ incomplete verbage on the form were on Wayne (the FHIC lobbyists) list of items to point out when he was not allowed to speak at the meeting OIR had last Tuesday.
I am outraged. OIR needs to be restaffed with personell that will work for Florida homeowners. I can’t blame insurance co.s anymore, they are being ripped off by improperly done 1802’s, part of the cause is the stupidity factor and confusion regarding the form. A major factor is outright fraud and collusion between agents, homeowners and inspectors.
They had a real opportunity to eliminate the confusion and did in some repects but added to it in other ways. I had commented earlier that eventually this form will be like the tax code, nobody will be able to understand it. All that is required is simplification. That is something governmental agencies never can do.
This is soooo sad, it may be true, wow. i hope this was sarcasm :roll:
Im serious. ID/Citizens makes the rules, They probably made the form. You think it was a coincidence that the new form and classes came out at the same time last go-around… teaching exactly what to put in the “Other” columns? Lets just be honest who is running the show.
Your safest bet is to take “their” class, and fill out the form the way they tell you… and cite “there” manuals. I do like eric’s liability waiver. I have recently seen homeowner’s getting re-inspected, dropped for missing opening protection, and back-charged for discounts they didnt deserve.