Wind Mit verification question

Just curious

How many of you check box A in question 2 when you have a permit with an application date of 3/1/2002 or later when 6D nails are found with 6 inch spacing.

Every time. What does the RDA have to do with FBC roof covering outside the HVHZ? Sometimes I wonder about you Bill.:wink:

Similar question for areas outside of the HVHZ - are questions 1 & 2 purely determined by permit date or are there any situations A can be awarded with a permit date before 3.1.02?

What are you wondering about. If the home was built after 2001 box A applies inside and outside and outside the HVHZ. Every agent down here sends the reports back if you mark B instead of A on that scenario The only difference between A and B is the date.

So you are going to mark the roof meets the FBC based on a permit and not what you observe. .

A. 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.

If the roof covering was installed prior to 3/1/2002 did it meet FBC. This would require doing some research. Or was the roof permitted on or after 3/1/2002. If this is the case then I choose A.

Roof Deck Attachment doesn’t have anything to do with roof covering meeting FBC, or did I miss something.

You should use “A” for anything permitted on or after 03/01/2002. Use “B” inside the HVHZ for roofs permitted between 09/01/1994 and 02/28/2002. Read the form.

If that permit is applied for on or after 03/01/2002, AND was finaled, then yes it gets listed as “A”. We are not code inspectors, remember.

You were trying to join the RDA question with FBC roof covering verification…they do not have anything to do with each other on the 1802.

If you can definitively show that the roof covering has a valid approval at the time of installation, then you can select “A”. This is sometimes hard to get through the underwriters without enough documentation.

Okay, thanks. So if I was going to go the extra mile and try to confirm FBC or Miami-Dade product approval what would I need that would reasonably connect the roof covering material to its product approval listing? If the customer prints out an NOA, how do you connect that to the actual shingles? You can’t, right? Also, is it fair for the customer to ask us to procure documentation on a variety of different openings or is that left up to them?

Correct…not by itself. An approval has to be connected to the product by dated contract (marked paid), warranty info and/or pd invoice stating the products used, etc. Same thing with opening protection products, although that takes some deciphering too. Always ask for docs from the insured if you don’t, or can’t get them yourself.

Actually, there is a case in court right now where the judge has ruled that the 1802 is a code inspection. If it goes to appeals it will become case law, whatever the ruling. If the insurance company or the inspector settles, the issue will go away until the next law suit.

The mistake everyone is making is assuming that if there is a ‘valid’ approval that the roof was put on per the code. Roof deck attachments have everything do with the roof meeting the FBC. If they are not correct, how can it meet the code.

Try making that argument to the wind mitigation inspector who said a 4.3 million dollar house had impact glass, when in, fact, none of the windows were impact rated. And the seller had all of the NOA;s sitting on the table.

Hi Bill, you show on the MB as a guest, you keep asking all these questions, yet in the end, you seem to have all (or most of) the answers. There are plenty of new guys here (myself included) that could benefit from your (apparent) knowledge, and plenty of HI vets that debate with you here.
I saw a thread from MB about four years ago suggesting “wind MIT question of the day”. I think this was a great idea. Could you take this up? Seems like you already have.
It would be great to have a question and an answer on a daily basis.

I saw a thread the other day which dealt with reading window etching, and as of my last check, ended with a non-definitive answer. Can you give any insight on how to read window etching or where to access this information?
Thanks for all of your insight and help.

Brad, you win in this one for, for now. They are two separate issues. However I would like to have an answer to this:

You guys all say that the 1802 is not a code inspection and the NOA will suffice for poof of impact rating. How would you defend the wind mitigation inspector who said a 4.3 million dollar house had impact glass, when in, fact, none of the windows were impact rated. And the seller had all of the NOA;s sitting on the table.

Samuel (0r is it Dave),

The reason I pose these questions is there are things going, like that law suit, that most inspectors for not know about, or are not bringing to light. These are issues can greatly affect the home inspection industry. As you can see, sometimes I am wrong. But a lot of times the questions never actually get answered and the threads drift off the subject.

Will I do a wind mitigation question of the day. No. If someone sends me an email, I will respond, but I am not going to play educator for NACHI. You have your own people for that.

And you are right, I am a non member. I used to be. I have my reasons for not keeping this membership. But that does not mean that I do not care about the industry and want to see it progress in a professional manner. I will keep posting questions until I get censored.

On your etching question, no one knew that answer and most of the replies said you do not need to know as long as you have a stamp or NOA. That is further form the truth than you can imagine.

Bill’s answers are not always correct. They are his opinions, and thinks that installation code has to be verified by the home inspector. This is not required for the 1802, and even may be illegal as we are not certified building officials. There are many cases where the roof covering has been replaced and properly permitted, without updating the roof deck attachment to current code. I don’t know where he is getting this FALSE impression that the FBC roof covering is invalidated by a nonconforming roof deck attachment…Completely False.

I do agree however, that verifying impact windows can be an art. There may be a few cases where fraud was involved with the permitting and the actual product installed. AHJ can be fooled, and maybe a better look is needed to be sure.

That judge’s ruling was based solely on the wording of the form where dates and FBC references are used…that’s it. Not the inspector’s duty to do a code inspection.

This thread will get you started.

“That judge’s ruling was based solely on the wording of the form where dates and FBC references are used…that’s it. Not the inspector’s duty to do a code inspection”. As of right now there is a judgment for the plaintiff in this case with the ruling that the 1802 is a code inspection. It may get over turned or most likely they will settle and it goes away, for now. Have you read the ruling? If it goes to appeals and becomes law, then what will you say?

And you never did answer the question on how the wind mit inspector is going to justify giving those windows an impact rating when they are not.

As far as the roof, I stated earlier that you were right. But if you want push it farther, so be it.

It also seems to me that Brad has the answers. Perhaps he should take on the wind mit question of the day

The quotes below are directly from the form. Question one asks specifically if the home is in compliance with the building code. If you find an issue on question three, which doesn’t jibe with question ones answer, then, now, you would have to mark A or B on the roof deck attachment and C on question one.


For roof coverings, again, the form asks for compliance with the FBC.

As I have said many times, more specifically, using “shiners”, aka, blatant code violation, to determine a nailing pattern, this form and a majority of the methods used to acquire the information are woefully flawed.

I had the same situation a few months ago on a 2004, 2M house right on Tampa Bay. Everybody said impact, verified as wind-load, tempered only. Somehow the builder got it through AHJ because it was permitted under 2001 FBC which didn’t require impact yet for WBDR. I never said that a NOA sheet sitting on a table, validates an opening protection product. The window sticker or other docs (window series), etc. has to have that NOA number on them, then you can use it. Otherwise it’s just a sheet of paper.

Yes, Eric. We DO verify which code version the product was installed under, but that’s it. We do not verify if the installation was installed as per code…there is a difference.