Roof OK?

[evandeven (Eric Van De Ven, CMI)]

@mmeeker

I do not believe that will work it they know how it is installed.

To me the reason it is good is because it adheres directly to the wood. without that once a corner or piece comes up pop pop pop goes the tar and tin tags and it all flies away. When it is totally glued to the wood there is virtually no way it will go anywhere unless the wood leaves the structure.

.

I would rather have the roof covering come off than the roof decking!

The point I would make is that the S in SWR stands for secondary, which would be the second layer.

This roof, when it is all said and done, may have five or six coverings!

The other point is now, not only is the OIR overriding the building code, but now, also the manufacturer.

The rep from the company said he would be more than happy to write a letter to the insurance company if needed as the product has a NOA rating for the way it is installed.

[mmeeker (Michael Meeker, CMI)]

The problem with your theory is:

None of it matters the only way underwriters must give credits is if something meets the definition of the form.
Kind of sort of better than etc… does not mean squat to them. Either does common sense. All that matters is the exact words on the form. It sucks but it is true. I often describe things in positive ways as side notes on forms and have only been contacted ONCE by a underwriter that cared and used his judgement to give the credit.

It was with one of the old school roof to wall connection. We had a couple of threads about them. He gave it the double wrap credit because he used his common sense and my opinion. They do not have to do that.

[evandeven (Eric Van De Ven, CMI)]

@mmeeker

The problem with your theory is:

None of it matters the only way underwriters must give credits is if something meets the definition of the form.
Kind of sort of better than etc… does not mean squat to them. Either does common sense. All that matters is the exact words on the form.

It sucks but it is true. I often describe things in positive ways as side notes on forms and have only been contacted ONCE by a underwriter that cared and used his judgement to give the credit.

It was with one of the old school roof to wall connection. We had a couple of threads about them. He gave it the double wrap credit because he used his common sense and my opinion. They do not have to do that.

That is the problem. The form is wrong in several areas and should be changed.

I had to go to the head underwriter on the home that had the “Sanibel” wrap because one of the underlings said it was a toe nail because it had no nails!

I asked him how it could be a “toe nail” …with no ****ing nails?

Asked him if he read the spec sheet I included with the report and he said it didn’t matter. I then asked him, “Why bother with any of this in the first place”?

He spoke with someone else and my Client got the credit.

[mmeeker (Michael Meeker, CMI)]

It is tough and due to the fact that those nuts take a class and then they look at the pictures I believe we should not supply because it causes them to make their own decisions instead of going with our professional opinions.

not ONLY ARE PICTURES DANGEROUS AND USELESS THEY GIVE THE INSURANCE PEOPLE THE MISCONCEPTION THAT THEY KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT THE STRUCTURE WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE ONLY SEEING A SMALL view THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE FROM THE HOME THAT IS BEING INSPECTED.

sry bout the caps. I still look at the keys