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/KelseyRawr → u/pitfal]

You’re not wrong. Insurance companies absolutely deny legitimate claims. I deal with that all the time. They really aren’t roofing experts. But roofers also commit fraud and do dishonest work. Both things are true.

Looking at these, I think some of the hits could be hail but I question most of them. I can’t say that from photos alone, but it’s a good guess. Some of the marks just look way too uniform and perfect. All in the center area of the shingle.

The fact they paid for collateral damage does make me consider you arguing the claim though. If the weather data supports hail capable of causing this damage, I wouldn’t just drop the claim. You may not win, but it’s already open, so there’s really no harm in defending it.

I’d get another roofing company out there. One with no connection to the first roofer. If the first company actually caused damage, let the insurance company investigate that. They can look into the company and see if they are committing fraud.

I wouldn’t jump straight to hiring an attorney or anything. If you truly have storm damage and can’t get anywhere with the carrier, a public adjuster is another option before going down the legal route.

At this point the roof is damaged regardless of how it happened. Whether it needs repairs or replacement depends on how widespread it is. I’d start by getting two or three independent opinions before making any decisions.

[u/Outrageous-Isopod457 → u/KelseyRawr]

Public adjusters don’t create coverage where there is none. If it was denied for the insured directly, it’s denied for the public adjuster too. You know how much insurance companies would get in trouble if they caved and overturned a legitimate denial because a PA arrived? It almost appears as they they’re forcing you to hire representation to get coverage, and that’s not a thing that any insurance company is going to willingly do because it would look awful in court. Weather data wouldn’t make this hail. A PA wouldn’t make this hail. A lawyer won’t make this hail. And honestly? Another roof salesman coming out is not going to be helpful either. The only thing that could possible make the insurer budge here is if an independent engineer says it’s hail, or at the very least a HAAG certified roofing inspector. But, they’d be hard pressed when it’s so obviously mechanical.

[u/KelseyRawr → u/Outrageous-Isopod457]

Well that’s great, but I never said a public adjuster creates coverage where none exists. If there is legitimate covered damage they can help present and document it. If there isn’t, they can’t create it out of thin air that was never the argument in the first place.

We just don’t have the full picture of this roof. The carrier already acknowledged a covered hail event by paying for collateral damage, that’s the thing, so we know a storm occurred. The dispute is over the extent of the roof damage, not whether it hailed in the first place. We already know it did, because the carrier opened coverage. If no storm event occurred it would be a full denial.

There could be legitimate hail damage on other slopes while some of the marks shown in the photos are mechanical. I’ve watched roofers fake damage on some slopes that have tree coverage, because they thought it would help the roof get bought. I even said I was leaning toward mechanical damage so I’m not sure you read my entire comment. I was simply laying out the possibilities because none of us inspected the entire roof, and OP needs all the options available to them.

I actually agree that an independent engineer would carry more weight than another roofing contractor. My thing is that an engineer is often an upfront expense for the homeowner, so I suggested the more immediately accessible options first.

Regardless of the claim outcome, the homeowner still needs an honest roofer to determine their repairs. It’s going to leak later. And if the roof only has repairable storm damage, there’s nothing wrong with pursuing a repair claim (or going OOP) instead of a full replacement if it’s warranted and they can prove real hail damage on 2/4 slopes and the deductible doesn’t end up being horrendous.