I’m looking for opinions…
How would you rate this flat roof on your wind mitigation report?
Would you classify it as structurally connected and count it’s length as a non-hip shape in your calculations of the roof perimeter in the determination for roof geometry classification?
Or would you say it is attached only to the wall of the host structure and should not be counted as a non-hip feature in the calculation?
Looks like a normal flat roof to be included for measurement
Think of it this way… If a hurricane were to rip off that flat roof, would it affect the rest of the attic space or structure?
If yes, (as this would) it is included in the measurements.
That’s how I rated it. To me it’s clear that it is structurally attached, but here’s my dilemma:
A Residential Contractor erroneously gave this client a hip roof credit. I do over 1,100 wind mits a year and I’ve run into situations like this where a mistake was made on a previous report probably at least a hundred times over the years where credit was given for something that the client did not qualify for. I usually just explain that mistakes do happen from time to time, I’ve made them myself (I’m not perfect, no one is) and I also explain exactly where the error occurred. While they may not be pleased, they always seem to understand that it’s not my fault and that they were actually receiving a discount for something they did not qualify for.
In this case however, even after I explained in detail where the error occurred, how a hip roof credit is calculated, and that it was an easy mistake to make for someone quickly taking images from the ground. He’s insisting I change the report, selectively quoting some partial portions of the requirements on the form without fully understanding what issue is. (As mentioned above by Daniel Horton, I always explain that if it’s structurally attached and the flat roof catches wind, it could rip his entire roof from his home, which is why the discount is not given).
I explained to him that insurance companies are extremely picky lately and would immediately notice something like this and kick it back. I did notice that the images in his previous report were taken in such a way that the flat roof connection is not visible due to the angle the images and their lower quality, which is probably why it was not rejected/kicked back. Not saying that was done intentionally by the Residential Contractor that did the inspection, it was probably just coincidental, but it would explain why it was not rejected. However, the angles and higher quality of my images show the actual connection/geometry, and the customer also had me perform a 4-point inspection which has nearly 40 detailed images of the entire roof in a separate report.
I’m not really sure what I should say to this client now. Due to the Residential Contractor’s error, he is hanging on to that as gold… The CRC was correct and I am making the error… When in reality what he is asking for is for me to change the report after acknowledging the correct classification in writing on an insurance form with images supporting that classification. It would require me to retake images at the angle similar to the CRC at a lower quality and omit some images from the 4-point inspection. In other words, I’d need to commit some serious conspiracy and insurance fraud. I’d be subject to criminal prosecution, and I would lose my license (ending my career/business). I’m obviously not willing to do that. lol
Any suggestions on how to respond to this client?
(Side Note: I have noticed that while we all make mistakes from time to time, the bulk of problems like this tend to come from people performing the wind mitigation inspections that are not Home Inspectors. I don’t know if it is because their licensing requirements do not have the same educational training requirements or if it’s just because they lack experience as it’s not really their area of expertise and they do not do enough of them, but it is enough that it is an obvious pattern. I’m not faulting them, like I said, it’s not really their main job).
Sounds like you have a real bully there.
I would not speak with him ever again, ignore the calls.
If it persists after that, tell him do not call & stop the harassment to force me to commit insurance fraud.
Also suggest you may have to contact the insurance carrier & he should be back-charged for the time he had a hip credit.
Bottom line is no more contact or body slam the jerk.
With one simple and polite message:
I’ve completed your insurance report, it’s 100% accurate based on factual data, and I won’t change it. You are free to hire another qualified inspector if you choose.
I would guess, the contractor never went on the roof and doesn’t know there is a flat roof present.
It would appear that the homeowner replaced the roof)s) since last year and thought they were getting credit for the new roof. Unfortunately, they are going to lose the credit for the hip roof, which they never should have gotten in the first place. Unless he is claiming there is enough pitch to the roof to make it continuous with the main roof structure…
See what the other inspector checked on the roof page for type(s) of roof and see if the secondary roof was checked. If it wasn’t, then there is proof of the mistake. If it was…see Jeffs post above. 
IMO, that flat roof is only attached to the face of the wall, and therefore is not structurally attached to the main roof. It would not be included at all on my 1802. The previous contractor’s report reflects this, however he did not show a closeup of the tie-in. You did show this, which is what I base my selection on.
I’m a bit puzzled how you came to that conclusion that opposes everything that everyone else above has said. This is clearly not a situation of a simple connection to fascia or the wall, and I’m uncertain how it could be justified to not even document the flat roof on the 1802 at all without the report being immediately rejected by the insurance company (if noticed).
Based on the exterior images, if this flat roof were to be lifted in a storm, it would not be possible to simply break free as one with a simple attachment to the fascia or a wall. From the exterior it appears to be structurally attached and goes underneath the hip roof. Being ripped off in a storm would most certainly result in direct damage to the main roof based on the exterior connections visible in the photograph.
From the rooftop photo, it seems that the flat roof is structurally attached.
However, if the flat roof is structurally attached to the exterior wall or just the facia board, it would not be structurally attached.
I think you are the best qualified to determine the answer. If you are saying that the rest of the roof would be affected if the flat roof were to blow away, then it most likely is structurally attached.
