wind mitgation dilema / question

Question #2. 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.

Roof put on in 2015. Clearly there were repairs done to the rafter system at the time of the re-roof. There was no record of any engineering report, which is required for these repairs, but there was a permit.

How are you going to mark this. A or C /D


The rafter system repairs is not a question on the 1802

Let me try to understand this. The rafter system is part of the roof structure. When a permit is pulled to replace a roof and rafter damage is found, it is supposed to be repaired by a structural and engineering reports are suppoosed to be submitted. That all falls under the permit process for the roof replacement. The 1802 form says 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 these repairs done were wrong and the proper paperwork was not submitted, then the installation would not meet the Florida Building code. Yet you are telilng me that all I need is a roof covering that has an Miami Dade approval and I am good to go. Somehow that does not make sense to me.

The 1802 is only speaking to the roof covering.

The answer to your question is underlined.

Also, the question specifically asks about roof coverings.
You could always put a notation on the form to cover yourself.

Now, say that home was built after 2002, for whatever reason the roof was replaced, and you checked the appropriate box for question one with those repairs present…that might be different. :wink:

The OIR-B1-1802 is a Mitigation Verification Inspection, this means all components related to the mitigation, or hardening, of the structure. Mitigation by definition is the reduction or redistribution of force and is inclusive of ALL parts of the structure relating to that function…nothing less.

Just because you can tell yourself something different, doesn’t make it so…

Eng’g report req’d?


Req’d by whom?:roll:

And again, has nothing to do with the form you are filling out.

You are way over-analyzing this simple task!:roll:

Is this you saying that…or are you just repeating what you have heard from other inspectors? Do you have any information from the OIR verifying your claim?

When is a rafter a roof covering??? the form says roof covering, not rafter, not truss, roof covering…
We are verifying specific questions asked on a form. We are not verifying the rafters were repairs properly.
Would you like me to post the definition of a roof covering for you???

Doesn’t apply. Don’t over think it. The form asks for specific facts, not opinions.

Reece, until the OIR releases a statement clarifying the forms intent the only thing we have to go by is the history of the document. As HI’s, we have only been listed on the form for 5 years…in your case since the beginning as your are a CBC.

Everything said here that can not be verified through the OIR is strictly guessing…nothing more, nothing less. What we are seeing is HI’s being sued and losing, and losing big. This forms intent is not decided by you or me, but by the courts of law unitl the intent is satisfied by the OIR.

The courts have ruled it a code inspection…I don’t know what to tell you guys.

Even worse, as we speak there is a declarative statment asking the DBPR if the statutes of our licensure apply to insurance inspections. Worst case senario, they say no and the ability to disclose and exclude is removed…including the part that says inspectors are not require to inspect for code compliance.

This would be disasterous to say the least.

Lets change this dicussion up a little bit. The picture below shows damaged sheathing. When they replced the roof it would have been obvious visible damage after removing the shingles. You see this from the attic. Knowing the shingles had nothing to be nailed into properly are your going to still check A or B if the permit applies?


You can talk about hypothetical situations all day that may or may not affect anything. If you are going to make issues about something visible from a limited visit to the attic then you should just inspect the attic while there. What if the attic is so small you can’t see the entire attic? How do you know there are not other issues in areas not visible? what if they pulled a permit? what if they didn’t? How do you know the leak you see was just a defect from the new roof and nobody knew? stick to the questions on the form. If this confuses you maybe you should not do Wind Mits.


First of all that was not hypothetical. Roof replaced in 2015, so I doubt very much it jut happened. Second of all, you think because i said lets change the discussion a little that I am playing games. No true. I went from rafters to sheating becasue I believe it is relevant. You make it sound like you do not inspect the attic. Tell me how you could not see someting visible when you have to open the hatch anyway and it is staring you in the face. Do I know there are other issues that I cannot see. NO. But that is not the issue. This was in plain view, but unless I am nothing more than an insruance a** kissing inspector I gues I would not see it. If they pulled a permit all that would mean is that they pulled a permit and did not do their job properly, but I bet you they charged their client for that piece of wood they did not install. If they did not puill a permti then it is not FBC compliant becauase a permit is required for it to be FBC compliant.

Now the question was - what would you do if you had this situation. Would you mark the roof as FBC compliant becasue you have a permit? I would not because the roof was not installed properly becasue taht wood can no longer proprly hold the nail that goes through the shingle. What is your answer and explanation.

I would answer the questions on the form nothing more nothing less. How do you know the wood was rotten on top. It may be just a bad stain. Did you stick a pick in it? I see previous stains all the time. If it looks fresh I always give a verbal not to the owner. A fresh leak should be covered by a warranty from the installer and if the buyer paid for a new roof I’m quite sure they want it repaired. Will you come back out and inspect again? what would be your explanation to the owner and the agent in regards to your answer? How many cans of worms are you trying to open? you are still over thinking it.

Not so. You have no way to determine whether that was visible on the top of the sheathing or not.

Robert, you seem to be a fan of reporting to code, what is your opinion of question #4 on the 1802?
It calls for a minimum of 3 nails to be a clip or strap. The OIR has created a completely different opinion and definition of what a strap or clip is when compared to the FBC. So, how can it be expected to have code compliance on a form that contradicts code?

Reece, the code on this is pretty clear in it’s intent. If the decking is visibly damaged or “water soaked” it must be replaced…agruing that the decking wasn’t visible at the topside as damaged doesn’t remove you from liability. Ultimately, through statutes 489 & 455, you are responsible for determing proper attachement and condition of the deck for attachement of the roof covering.

The building code does define “roof assembly” as inclusive of the deck and roof covering…

**ROOF ASSEMBLY. **A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design loads. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck or a single component serving as both the roof covering and the roof deck. A roof assembly includes the roof deck, vapor retarder, substrate or thermal barrier, insulation, vapor retarder, and roof covering.

…also, the Existing Building Code on reroofing:

2010 Florida Building Code: Existing Building: 611.3 Recovering versus replacement. </B>
New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of roof coverings where any of the following conditions occur:

  1. Where the existing roof or roof covering is water soaked or has deteriorated to the point that the existing roof or roof covering is not adequate as a base for additional roofing.

The 1802 clearly asks if the ROOF COVERING is FBC compliant. Not the roofing system or installation methods.
Was the roofing material tested, approved, and marked to be compliant with the FBC or Miami Dade at the time of installation OR have a permit after 3/1/2002?
Have you taken the NACHI wind mit course? Also, you can contact John Shishilla, he put the course together and has consulted with the OIR on interpretation.
Hope this helps.

From top to bottom the 1802 is rife with code violations and inaccuracies, none more obvious than #6 when it comes to secondary water barrier.

#4 is no different…the 1802 is what happens when people with no real understanding of mitigation of structures or engineering practices get involved in the design of an engineering document. The current form was extremely dumbed-down for home inspectors, sad but true. No better example of that than this forum, but I do believe that’s about to change. HI’s have dug themselves a hole and will end up being removed from the form at some point…and to be honest it’s for the best, both our industry and the insurance industry.

The from is inaccurate, incomplete, and leaves individuals not educated in mitigation exposed. Everyone is happy now, wait unitl the first storm comes through. It’s almost like we learned nothing in 1992, and again in 2004/2005.

If we assume the standards and statutes of our licensure do not apply to insurance inspections, as mots home inspectors do, then the philosophy of “home inspectors are not required to comment or inspect for code” goes right out the window…along with the ability to exclude and dislcose in the inspection…essentially, you are fully exposed and can’t use any of the stautes and adminiatrative code to defend yourself. Ponder that for a second or two…