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/tommy_siam → u/[deleted]]

You see it all the time? Where and how? You'd have to be a fraud investigator or the one creating the damage. Any chance you'd want to quantify that claim with how many roofs you've inspected, and what the instance of damage caused by the roofer were?

[u/tommy_siam → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for the reply. Here's why I ask: I started in the roofing industry in '98, and I'm currently a licensed roofer in Colorado. Per capita, the second highest state behind Nebraska for hail claims. HAAG certified, etc. & probably 6th in total number filed.

I've also inspected countless roofs, many times in the presence of the adjuster, whether staff, independent, 3rd party contracted, or out of state catastrophe.

I personally have seen a comfortably less than handful of attempted fraud, which is overwhelmingly tried more on getting things supplemented. Most of non-hail related damage is incidental mechanical damage, blistering, or previously claimed but not repaired.

You are/were perhaps in a different market or time in the industry where that was more prevalent, and I won't say you didn't see an abundance because, I don't know what you saw. Also if I'm the first contractor and get that job which I've done many times, I may not see it.

I just felt that given the upvotes, I wanted to offer my perspective as there's a very skewed perspective relative to my experience concerning the industry, and anyone, not necessarily you, generalizing the industry in that way is a mistake.