Roof Covering Wind Mitigation

Local Inspection Issues Florida and SUNachi Inspectors
1

Okay I was contacted by a insurance agent and told that I improperly filled out 1802 for a client. I would like some opinions on this because if I’m wrong I need to know. This home was a 1999 brick home with a complete hip roof. Roof original. No documentation. Was I wrong to check the B. box under Roof Covering.

B. All roof coverings have a Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of installation OR (for the HVHZ only) a
roofing permit application after 9/1/1994 and before 3/1/2002 OR the roof is original and built in 1997 or later.

“OR the roof is original and built in 1997 or later”

2

I think the agent is correct. Those dates are for homes in south florida only.

in your area the key date is 3-1-2002.

3

Hello Harry,

The Agent is correct. You are likely outside the HVHZ (Miami-Dade or Broward co.). That roof cannot qualify for B.

Based on your info, it will not qualify for the roof covering rating.

Good job bringing this to the board! :smiley:

4

I agree with Jay and Greg.

5

People out of the hvhz got the shaft when the new form came out.

C or D.

A is for the non-hvhz zone.

You could ask the client to get the permit information or noa numbers for the roof covering and that may get the discount back.

6

Thanks guys! Now I know. Go GATORS!!!

7

I agree with Jay, Greg, Michael, and Eric. Also, Go GATORS!!!

8

Actually Harry is not wrong but he is also not right.

Every respondent to the question is however completely wrong. Harry I hope this reaches you.

Here is the intent, a Roof Covering can Qualify for either A or B regardless of location in the state. There are at least 7 ways a roof can qualify:

  1. A re-roofing permit application date after 3/1/2002 (Meets A); OR

  2. (for the HVHZ only) a re-roofing permit application date after 9/1/1994 and before 3/1/2002 (Meets B); OR

  3. A verifiable**** MDC or FBC Product approval that was current at time of installation (for original or re-roofs). Verifiable means that you have provided documentation that specifically identifies the manufacturer/model of the roof covering and date of installation to provide evidence that the product approval number is valid (Meets A or B depending on the structures year built); OR

  4. Or the home was built in 2002 or 2003, the roof covering is original, and you have provided a permit application date for the building after 3/1/2002 (Meets A); OR

  5. The home was built in 2004 or later, the roof is original and has not been replaced (if the roof is not original go back to step 1, 2 and 3) (Meets A); OR

  6. The home is located in the HVHZ between 1994 and 1996, the roof is original, and you have provided a permit application date for the construction of the home that is after 9/1/1994 (if the roof is not original go back to step 1, 2 and 3) (Meets B); OR

  7. The home is in the HVHZ, built in 1997 or later, and the roof is original (if the roof is not original go back to step 1, 2 and 3) (Meets B).

So, if Harry had provided a MDC product approval number that was current at time the home was built, even outside the HVHZ, and had also provided documentation of the manufacturer/model to qualify the use of the product approval number the agent would be in fact wrong, and he would be correct.

You can use B outside the HVHZ and that is the intent of hte first part of the answer. The only time you can’t use B outside the HVHZ is when you are relying on the construction dates and have no other verifiable documentation of a product approval number. Then C or D are your only possible answers.

So for Harry’s area, the only time he can use the building code date is:

  1. The roof is original and has not been replaced, AND

  2. The home was constructed with a permit application date after 3/1/2002

I am not sure what NACHI is teaching in their course, I do know the Bill York Consulting course is teaching this part correctly. I did have a consolation with John on this topic before he began teaching his course.

9

I disagree. A roof outside of the HVHZ that was permitted on 2/28/2002 and had VERIFIABLE Miami Dade Approved products installed. Still was not required to meet the requirements of the Miami Dade building code because it’s not in Miami Dade. Therefore, the roofing “system” can not meet the 2001 FBC and can not meet the 1994 MDBC.

10 
        You forgot two key detail Darius that were not part of his question. First a client with the product approval documentation you listed. Second, an underwriter that will accept that documentation when the roof dates don't correspond.
11

First off, people that are not in the hvhz did get screwed for the reasons Reese mentioned.

With the information Harry was provided with, there is no choice but C or D.

If he were to get the NOA numbers, as I stated previously, the insurance company “may” accept that.

It would appear that all of the courses are teaching different ways to interpret the form. Which isn’t their fault because the form, just like all the others, was poorly designed.

As far as “intent”, facts matter, not intent.

12

Reece,

First lets clear up a few facts:

  1. There is no such thing as the Miami-Dade Building Code, in 1994 Miami-Dade adopted the South Florida Building Code (SFBC-94) which was based on the Standard Building Code with additional requirements. In 2002, Miami-Dade rescinded the SFBC and Adopted the statewide FBC. The additional requirements are still embedded in the FBC as the HVHZ requirements.
  2. It is critical in interpretation to not read anything into the form that does not exist. Both questions A and B are related to the compliance of the roof covering (not installation) regardless of code in force at time of installation.
  3. You can also qualify a roof by using the building application date relative to the SFBC-92 or FBC trigger dates if the roof is original and has not been replaced.
  4. In short you must provide either a verifiable FBC/MDC Approval number OR the permit application date that shows the roof covering would have to comply with either the SFBC if ht home is located in the HVHZ or the FBC for any location in Florida.

Jay,

I feel your pain but, we regularly provide verifiable product approval numbers for roofs in NW Florida for homes built between 199 and 2002 and the owners get the credits. We have never had an inspection form rejected or a qualified credit denied. I’m not going to teach you guys how to provide this information other than to state it must be verifiable as I explained in my earlier post.

If anyone wants to pay me to teach them how to properly document roof covering and other parts of the OIR B1-1802 form, you will get your moneys worth. OR, you can go to www.safeRISC.com and see if you are interested in joining our statewide group of professional insurance inspection companies. It is a new concept that lets you set pricing and service offerings without having to give up your profit and agent contact to a large centralized WCE/statewide inspection company.

If any one is interested, I am one of the o-authors of the OIR B1-1802 form although the final wording is left up to OIR attorneys, we never see the final draft before adoption but we do submit a lot of recommendations and participate in the rule making process with many others. The link below is the history of comments and recommendations.

http://www.floir.com/sections/pandc/productreview/uniformmitigationformcomments.aspx

13

Correction. I meant to say SFBC-94.
After re-reading the form, it appears that you are correct, Darius. Now, I just have to convince the insurance companies that I work with.

14

Well if it was easy we wouldn’t have a job right? LOL

It is a fact that all insurance company’s accept a verifiable product approval number regardless of code in force at time of construction, or if a permit was pulled or not, or the location of the home.

I challenge you to provide the name of one that does not accept this.

All homes are treated equally without discrimination so I strongly disagree that the HVHZ was treated differently (screwed). If anything they are being provided more inclusion because the credits in statute are only related to the FBC, not the SFBC.

If you need help convincing insurance companies give me the name and a copy of your documentation report and I will either tell you why your report is being rejected (most probable cause) or call the insurance company and straighten it out.

If you provide a verifiable product approval number from MDC or the FBC system that was current at time of installation the insurance company does not have choice as to whether or not they accept it, the credit is qualified.

The basis for making this statement of fact is s. 627.711, it is in statute.

Before you criticize the form wording and intent you need to read the 2002 Loss Relativities Report, the statutes and then participate in the process like many of us do. It’s not perfect, its based on an open and public consensus process. Here are is a link to the final comments our unofficial group of subject matter experts submitted. This takes many hours and is difficult work, we are not compensated by anyone we do it for free because it affects our industry.

15

Before you criticize the form wording and intent you need to read the 2002 Loss Relativities Report, the statutes and then participate in the process like many of us do. It’s not perfect, its based on an open and public consensus process. Here are is a link to the final comments our unofficial group of subject matter experts submitted. This takes many hours and is difficult work, we are not compensated by anyone we do it for free because it affects our industry.

*Why do we need to read any report relative to the Wind Mit form? We are obligated to use the form including its limitations. As one of the PUBLISHERS it is YOUR responsibility to read all pertinent information. ***
It is the “end product” that represents the authors or contributors of any required form. You almost hit the bulls-eye, but not quite.
While this is a “work in progress” there are many homeowners that, in the real world, have to pay the consequences for any “It’s not perfect,”**attributes.

16

And that would be one of my biggest complaints.

Just like the previous form was released when it was widely known that there was a study for the single wrap with 2 nails on one side, one on the other, yet, it was still a clip.
Speaking of that, is there a study for a strap that comes out of the wall and has 6 nails with another strap on the other side of the truss nailed in the same manner? (see photo)

It would be like a major software company putting out an operating system that you had to pay for, then making tweaks to fix bugs discovered by the paying customers. :wink:

Duke2 (84) (Large).jpg
Duke2 (84) (Large).jpg800×531 29.7 KB

17

Wherever you draw a line in the sand, there will always be someone on the wrong side, for this they will not be happy. Our job is to determine which side of the line they are on, not decide where the line is drawn. If you want decide that you should get involved as Darius stated.

18

Well I have learned that NO ONE gives a crap about my opinions on the forms or the process. They only listen to the biggest players in the game. The ones that have been doing everything screwed up for so many years :frowning:

19

The best we can do is provide recommendations, no one gets to see the final edited form until rule development has been closed allowing no further edits. It then goes to the Finacial Services Cabinet for a fianl hearing and approval. The OIR attorneys make the final edits to insure compliance with statutes. Sometimes a misplaced punctuation mark or change in wording can open up new interpretations but intent is a major consideration even after the form has been published. In addition, OIR has sent out directives to clarify certain parts of the form and anyone regulated by OIR (insurance company, agents, etc) can request a Declaratory opinion if they have a question.

The legislature is the only body that can reopen the rule for changes. Hopefully the current form will not be changed anytime soon. The process has been years in rule hearings due to legislative changes and adding or taking away parties who can sign the form has been the main reason for rule development. It’s like Pandoras box though, once you open the rule the form can be changed. So if you want to complian, complain to the representatives and special interest groups who keep opening the form to manipulate who can sign. THe legilsature under Charlie Crist created the mess, and groups acting only in thier interest have compounded the process and created form changes.

The reason I got involved was to work with a group of subject experts that were committed to producing a accurate form the industry could trust to hopefully eliminate the need for reinspections and add credability to the process.

It is aslo worth mentioning that every froup in attendance at rule devlopment hearings has asked OIR to create an instruction sheet to accompany the form. OIR agrees this is a good idea but hass been unable to implemented any rule hearings to date. The entire industry and the Florida Consumer Advocate are now recommending that OIR create an instruction sheet to accompany the form. It will likely take legislative action to authorize OIR to do this.

So don’t kill the messenger, we are just working within the framework that was provided by statute. No one party can control or influence the form without significant consensus and OIR’s review.

20

Appreciate your efforts man, keep fighting the good fight. Most of us here on these forums would love to collaborate and help you work on future versions of the form should it come up for review if given the chance. If not, could you give us a heads up with updates and such in the future? Be our inside guy with regards to the form and all changes related to it? That would also be greatly appreciated.