# Need Advice - Insurance won't pay for flashing



## jagans (Oct 21, 2012)

What does your insurance company think they are? Health insurance, where they don't consider your teeth as part of your body?

Proper flashing is part of a new roof. Now, proper _*COUNTER FLASHING *_of your chimneys is best done by setting a non corrosive malleable metal like copper, or lead coated copper in the mortar between courses of brick. This is normally done by the mason during construction in a well built home. It can and should be reused. Unfortunately it is rarely done right, so a new counter flashing is usually cut into the mortar joints by a good roofer._*

Base flashing*_ sometimes called step flashing, is always replaced by a good roofer.

Key word here being: Good Roofer

I have never heard of re-using rubber pipe boots. If the existing pipe flashings (Pipe Jacks) are of sheet lead, they can be re-used if they are in good shape, because lead will basically last forever. ( The roofs of Cathedrals are of sheet lead) 

It sounds to me like your insurance company has gotten input from an idiot that knows just enough to get in trouble and get all their insured clients making a claim Pissed Off.


----------



## tinner666 (Mar 14, 2005)

Just point out that they can't arbitraily raise your deductible on a whim. 
If the price is $7,000. and your deductible is $1,000.00, the insurance pays $6,000.


Or in their words, it the price is $7,000. and your deductible is $1,000.00, they can't pay $3,000. and tell you your deductible just increased today to $4,000.00 and to suck it up. Simple as that.


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

Why should they have to pay for past bad work and lack of maintaince?
I see no reason you should not be paying for the lack of flashing and new roof jacks.
There only responsable for any damage from things like tree or storm damage.
I used to see this all the time, 30 year old three tab shinlges, past patches all over the roof, rusted flashing. Storm comes through and a few shingle get blown off and the customer wants a whole new atutectual shingled roof.


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

Hire a public adjuster, you'll get it paid for and some.


----------



## wkearney99 (Apr 8, 2009)

You can't buy a clapped-out old car and expect insurance cover the cost to repaint the whole thing when someone hits only one side of it.

Joe's pretty much on the right track. What condition was the roof in before the damage occurred that lead to the insurance claim? That's the baseline condition to which you probably agreed to have the policy cover. That's how most policies work. If it was a crappy roof lacking in flashing then it's up to you to bear the cost of improving that. That would've been your responsibility regardless of the hail damage. That's part of home ownership. 

Now, if this is some sort of home purchase insurance then the fine print in the policy would have to be examined. But I still doubt it'd cover a whole new roof.


You don't want to hear it but you're likely on the hook for the flashing.

As for 'hope' and insurance companies... ha, hah, hahahaaha... let me catch my breath from laughing at that one! Yeah, no, they're going to be cheap bastards about it.


----------



## paintdrying (Jul 13, 2012)

They have prayer groups out here where the people actually pray for storm damage to their homes so they can get things fixed. I do not understand how people can make all these claims on their insurance to have work done. Let alone asking God to damage their homes.


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

In relative terms....flashing is cheap.....if you have to pay for it out of pocket....do it....it's about par to lifting your toilet up and then putting it back down on the same wax ring.....

Or as a friend of mine used to say...."That is not the hill you want to die on".


----------



## tinner666 (Mar 14, 2005)

I was in a rush earlier so I gave the short anwer. Fact is, you'll have to pay the cost of the roof. No real roofer will lower his price to what the ins. co. is covering. You will be forced to cover some of the things yourself. That's the way it is, but some policies may still cover you. 
I explain what I'm doing to the agent, but it's your fight to fight to decide who is covering what. I won't leave stuff out of the job and degrade the quality of the roof I put on. 

I hope that makes better sense.


----------



## 747 (Feb 11, 2005)

Insurance says they want the current flashing and vent boots to be reused and refit during installation

Only a idiot would do this. Pay out of your pocket for new flashing and new boots. New rubber boots are better then recycled old ones. Also get some ice and water shield installed in the valleys on the roof.

ps Public adjuster is a good ideal. You would end up financially somewhere between insurance adjuster and public adjuster.


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

Not stealing thread just a public service announcement. Had a fire in the Kitchen 25 years ago called insurance Company, they came out and wanted to write me a check for 10K. Called a Public adjuster he evaluated all the damage from the fire IE; smoke trough out the entire house+ attic, entire house cleaning and painting(smell), replace entire kitchen, etc,etc. Put us in a furnished apartment, paid for hotel and food the first couple days, 50 K in the end. Insurance Company freaked the entire time. Point, If they cared and worked with me no one would have been called.


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

Totaly differant, did you have prexisting smoke and water damage? Have old cheap appliances but wanted them to replace them with new stainless steel, failing partical board subflooring with sheet flooring and wanted it replaced with Advantec and tile, old formica chipped and pot burned counter tops and want new stone tops? I doubt it.

An insurance companys job is to make you "whole again", to get you back to where you were before the disaster happened, not to fix things you knew about before and chose not to fix.

EG: I have bad brakes and 4, bald tires and have an accident and dent a fender. Should they pay me to replace the brakes and tires as well as fix the body damage?


----------



## scootermcrad (Jul 23, 2012)

Thanks for your replies, folks. This is the first time I've had to deal with a roof repair claim, so I don't know how all this works, but some of it didn't make a whole lot of sense.

First, I should start by saying, I will of course pay out of pocket for any additional costs to have the roof done correctly. The boots are toast and can't be reused. They're cheap. Flashing is also cheap. It wasn't really so much the price as it was the concept...

I would be less inclined to argue had they said, "we won't cover the flashing because of X reason." Saying that they want to "RE-USE" old materials doesn't make sense and I can't imagine would be even possible, for that matter. So that's why I question.

I absolutely agree that I wouldn't expect them for a SECOND to offer upgraded shingles or upgraded anything. But there are some things that are just part of a roofing job and they aren't including it. There's not a single roofer that will be able to warrant their work without doing these things that aren't included in their estimate. 

I know this is a little bit of "preaching to the choir", but we pay a lot of money for coverage and if they TELL ME they are going to cover the full replacement then they should cover it. So, I guess the argument is about the wording, when you get right down to it.

Anyway, thanks for the input guys. Guess insurance companies are just insurance companies. Was just surprised by their estimate. I'm obviously going to be concerned I'm being taken for a ride when their estimate comes in at almost HALF of what the other estimates are coming in at from the people who would ACTUALLY be doing the work and who have said they won't do the job at all if they had to do it the way the insurance company wanted it done. Seems counter-productive anyway.

The claim was from storm damage. Despite it being an older roof, it still wasn't having problems until the storm rolled through and did damage, which was what the claim was for. THEY were the ones that suggested the roof be replaced. We only expected repairs.

Onward and upward...


----------



## COLDIRON (Mar 15, 2009)

joecaption said:


> Totaly differant, did you have prexisting smoke and water damage? Have old cheap appliances but wanted them to replace them with new stainless steel, failing partical board subflooring with sheet flooring and wanted it replaced with Advantec and tile, old formica chipped and pot burned counter tops and want new stone tops? I doubt it.
> 
> An insurance companys job is to make you "whole again", to get you back to where you were before the disaster happened, not to fix things you knew about before and chose not to fix.
> 
> EG: I have bad brakes and 4, bald tires and have an accident and dent a fender. Should they pay me to replace the brakes and tires as well as fix the body damage?


Call a Public adjuster and you'll get enough to replace the tires, brakes,and fix the body damage. Weather they were needed or not.
I think Insurance Company is being pickey whenever a roof is replaced all the component's should be replaced and should be included in the price of the job. Not trying to be a crook or nasty here but I would find a roofing Company that would work with me, if you know what I mean.
If I pay my insurance without a claim for 20/30 years and I finally need them to step up and I get a bunch of flak I don't need, their paying .


----------



## jagans (Oct 21, 2012)

I think it really depends on which flashing we are talking about. No sane roofer is going to install a new roof without installing new base (step) flashing around a chimney, but quite a few will not install a new properly installed counter flashing. No roofer I work with is going to argue over new pipe boots either.

As for counter flashing, Properly installed does not mean cut a single piece of sheet metal shaped like a stringer and slap it against a chimney and caulk the top. Thats not proper.

All of the points here are well taken though. It really upsets me when somebody makes what can only be described as a false claim, because we all pay for that in increased rates. 

I have upset many an (Ex) client when I would not write a report that their roof failure was caused by a storm, when I was looking at a 25 year old roof that had failed due to time in service, inferior materials, or improper installation.


----------

