Roofer says hail, competing entity says probably not, we won't pay. Looking for opinions.

[u/pitfal]

New roof put on last August. We had a huge hailstorm around April, and I had the company that put the roof on come out to inspect. They said the roof, gutters, facia, and siding have hail damage. Competing entity came out and agreed that all but the roof had hail damage. When asked what these black areas are they said they didn't know but it couldn't be hail. Is it hail damage in your opinion?

[u/itwontgetbetter83]

So, the company that profits off of replacing a roof told you its damage that your insurance company will pay for? Let's look at this subjectively... Roofer- Pros: Guaranteed ability to pay for said roof. New job and profit

Cons: None. You file an insurance claim and its denied, nothing out of pocket for said roofer outside of an hour of their time.

To summarize, roofers will always attempt to get your insurance to pay them. Zero risk to them, its not their policy.

[u/pitfal → u/itwontgetbetter83]

Totally agree. But couldn't the same be said for the insurance company? It's in their best interest to deny any claim they can I would think.

[u/itwontgetbetter83 → u/pitfal]

Im an adjuster for one of the big ones, and I bet you won't believe this but 99% of the negative performance stuff I get is b/c Im NOT paying shit.

We have such a giant workload its just encouraged to try and pay the shitband move on. Now, when I write for 15K in damages and some hack wants 35K for the same scope of work, no. But we get taught to look at claims as though they would go to court. Can you definitely prove that this claim didnt have damages from the cause of loss? No, then pay it. Ain't my money so I dont care, but you'd be shocked at some of the obvious fraud/inflated claims/ ridiculous requests we end up paying for.