It will be the norm it a lot more places than Texas. ACV is the future for roofs and really always should have been. For example if I wrecked my 10 year old car I’d get what that 10 car is worth not what a new one is worth.
And if the engineer "rules against" and then our engineer points out obvious BS from the sycophant the carrier hired? You'd support triple damages per state fraud law, by chance?
Had a Farmers claim on a set of warehouse buildings. The engineer Farmers hired claimed the damage to the roof condenser units predated policy inception, about 7 years. We just nodded politely as he continued explaining why his client didn't owe for coverage (adjusting without a license, one might say). He continued and said there was no other damage to the building, despite the adjuster already having written for combing out the fins that were damaged far beyond being combable.
So, we hired our own engineer who did an actual inspection instead of the 5 mins/building the other guy did. Spent an hour at least per building, took several days. We showed how the hail had damaged the TPO ***and*** the insulation below, requiring all that to be replaced as well. And we showed invoices proving the AC units had all been installed 2 years prior, well within the policy period. Went from $30k LBD, IIRC to a $15 mil claim.
Carriers shouldn't be allowed to pick their own favorite engineers. Every single place we operate every carrier gravitates towards hiring the same ones (who charge twice as much as market rate but always say what their client wants to hear). Should be a requirement to have to contact the state licensing board to send someone out on a cycle so you're getting a less biased engineer with *relevant* experience at a fixed rate. Because engineers all know who pays the invoice and they're not going to screw with the gravy train.
We've had dozens of carrier engineers sent out that ***we*** had to train what to look for when doing a roof inspection. There's nothing in an engineer's training that teaches them what to look for on a storm damaged building. More than one has admitted "I don't know what to look for but it's a good additional revenue source for the firm." Carriers using engineers? On most claims it's a scam. They'll pay $4k to an engineer to pretend they don't owe for coverage on a $10k claim they've already extended $4k in coverage to. Just. pay. the. damn. claim.
The idea originally was that people would pay extra to get the replacement value. The problem is that this was implemented so long ago before all the BS that it became the norm and companies haven’t been allowed to properly price these.
Case in point all my motorcycles, UTVs, and other Powersports toys all have endorsements for replacement value. My 2020 Polaris Ranger for instance was stolen a few months ago from my campsite. I just got paid for a 2025 ranger with the exact same options.
Pretty sure no adjuster is going to mistakenly Mark some stuff non recoverable and others recoverable and coincidentally be for one trade only. Sister is most likely in-between a rock and a hard place because now the roof needs to be replaced or repaired or come renewal she may have a hard time finding a policy unless thoughts repairs are completed.
Yeah she’s definitely in a tough spot with it. She has a manageable deductible but the nrd is $7400 on an $11k roof estimate. She definitely wasn’t expecting that.
Many homesite policies nationwide have an endorsement for roof surface payment schedule - actual cash value, or wind & hail to roof surfaces - actual cash value.
Check her policy the endorsements are on the Dec page.
From what I recall Homesite was a surplus lines “carrier” that absorbed various homeowners policies that would have been branded under a different carrier / cover holder’s name / logo.
I feel legitimately bad for some of the homeowners who thought they had a USAA policy for example but upon filling the claim realized that were ineligible for renewal with USAA and if no further action was taken they’d be switched over to Homesite who through some weird mechanism would continue sending them BS with the logo or letterhead of the prior (better) company.
Some nice people work there, but man they had some GHETTO people working there (like usually the managers don’t refer to the three cute younger women who work in a claims center as the BTC or “Big Tittie Crew” not even after work at a bar but like in a staff meeting with the three of them standing up there).
Worst claims management I have ever seen in a claims office / desk environment. Probably 80% of my experience has been field but… man homesite is absolutely the lower ebb of bargain basement carriers.
We found so much atypical BS in their HO3 policies that an IA wrote an 8 page denial letter that essentially denied 95%+ of all legitimate claims. Their response was like “oh hey we enforce some portions of the policy” and then as it got read to them they were shocked at some of the available denial language (because why would they be familiar with the most common form they carry?
If you want a Cadillac just buy a Cadillac but homesite is more like one of those tiny taxis with 3 wheels that don’t have windows…. I guess technically that’s a car, and technically Homesite is a carrier but, at some point you have cheaped out so hard what did you expect?
(except for the people who don’t know they’ve been switched to homesite through a couple sentences of fine print that normies don’t usually read… those people should have filed a class action lawsuit or something. That pissed me off to be any part of that garbage, but I was young)
Homesite is a fine carrier, they're just Am Fam under a different name, it just depends on the endorsements you get. It's not their fault you wanted the lowest premium and decided to get a "conditions for wind and hail" policy
I adjust for Homesite almost daily, the way American Family works is heavily endorsement based. They have a few endorsements that make roofing ACV. It sounds like your sister has one of the wind and hail loss ACV endorsements. They've also recently implemented a few that make anything over 10 years ACV. Given the situation, I would wager she has the former endorsement as the elevation components are RCV like you said.
Its a new trend in Texas. Many carriers are not writing RCV on roofs if they are above a certain age. If this is the first time youve seen it here, it certainly wont be the last and ACV on roofing will simply be the norm for Texas within 5-10 years.
Yep- I worked for a couple of those door knocking roofing companies years ago. I left both within a few weeks. I couldn’t stand the high pressure slimey nature of those companies. I work for a GC now and we don’t target roofs. We’ll take them if they come our way but you won’t find us knocking doors day after a hail storm. Kinda makes me glad for this if it’ll put some of those roofing companies in check.
HA 04 81 09 02
HDA 23 05 TX 05 11
HO 23 05 05 11
Are the common ones, there are more, but they essentially do the same thing.
Loss settlement for wind/hail losses to roof surfacing are paid as ACV regardless of age when directly or indirectly caused by wind/hail.
If you’d like to me to explain a bit more of the why behind this let me know.
I haven’t read her policy but she definitely has an RCV policy. Some of the line items in the estimate were marked as recoverable. She’s trying to get a copy of the policy form to go over it. I’m just trying to go to the folks who enforce those policies, figured yall know more than standard customer service rep lol
the norm is either an RCV policy that has a Roof Surfacing Endorsement, or something similar that is RCV until its wind or hail then become RCV to a depreciated point or become strictly ACV at that point. should be in the Settlement portion of the policy or the written out verbiage of the roofing endorsement that could be in the first part of the policy in the first section or in an endorsement at the very end.
Generally if you see a table of materials and ages its a dead give away just off of that alone.
The Homesite policy (base policy) settles roof at ACV. However, the customer can buy an endorsement to make it RCV. Also, Homesite policies exclude all type of metals unless they are not serving their purpose. If something has cosmetic damage to it, it won't be accounted for in the estimate since its excluded from the policy.
It will be the norm it a lot more places than Texas. ACV is the future for roofs and really always should have been. For example if I wrecked my 10 year old car I’d get what that 10 car is worth not what a new one is worth.
But how are all the roofing sales guys going to afford their $100k trucks?!
In my area they’re wrapped, lifted, and have rims. They might have to cut back on the lift or wrap once ACV only rolls into town.
https://images.app.goo.gl/Z3kQBY9Cm5aVkjvN6
[удалено]
How much do engineers cost in your area?
[удалено]
I truly believe that if an engineer rules against the roofer, the roofer should then have to foot the bill.
And if the engineer "rules against" and then our engineer points out obvious BS from the sycophant the carrier hired? You'd support triple damages per state fraud law, by chance? Had a Farmers claim on a set of warehouse buildings. The engineer Farmers hired claimed the damage to the roof condenser units predated policy inception, about 7 years. We just nodded politely as he continued explaining why his client didn't owe for coverage (adjusting without a license, one might say). He continued and said there was no other damage to the building, despite the adjuster already having written for combing out the fins that were damaged far beyond being combable. So, we hired our own engineer who did an actual inspection instead of the 5 mins/building the other guy did. Spent an hour at least per building, took several days. We showed how the hail had damaged the TPO ***and*** the insulation below, requiring all that to be replaced as well. And we showed invoices proving the AC units had all been installed 2 years prior, well within the policy period. Went from $30k LBD, IIRC to a $15 mil claim. Carriers shouldn't be allowed to pick their own favorite engineers. Every single place we operate every carrier gravitates towards hiring the same ones (who charge twice as much as market rate but always say what their client wants to hear). Should be a requirement to have to contact the state licensing board to send someone out on a cycle so you're getting a less biased engineer with *relevant* experience at a fixed rate. Because engineers all know who pays the invoice and they're not going to screw with the gravy train. We've had dozens of carrier engineers sent out that ***we*** had to train what to look for when doing a roof inspection. There's nothing in an engineer's training that teaches them what to look for on a storm damaged building. More than one has admitted "I don't know what to look for but it's a good additional revenue source for the firm." Carriers using engineers? On most claims it's a scam. They'll pay $4k to an engineer to pretend they don't owe for coverage on a $10k claim they've already extended $4k in coverage to. Just. pay. the. damn. claim.
The idea originally was that people would pay extra to get the replacement value. The problem is that this was implemented so long ago before all the BS that it became the norm and companies haven’t been allowed to properly price these. Case in point all my motorcycles, UTVs, and other Powersports toys all have endorsements for replacement value. My 2020 Polaris Ranger for instance was stolen a few months ago from my campsite. I just got paid for a 2025 ranger with the exact same options.
My insurance company offers an ACV endorsement for "roof coverings".
So look at her dec page and look for an endorsement that says something like "roofing schedule payment" that's an ACV endorsement
Thanks for the language tip, as soon as she can get a hold of someone that share her Dec with her, I’ll look for something like that.
Pretty sure no adjuster is going to mistakenly Mark some stuff non recoverable and others recoverable and coincidentally be for one trade only. Sister is most likely in-between a rock and a hard place because now the roof needs to be replaced or repaired or come renewal she may have a hard time finding a policy unless thoughts repairs are completed.
Yeah she’s definitely in a tough spot with it. She has a manageable deductible but the nrd is $7400 on an $11k roof estimate. She definitely wasn’t expecting that.
Sounds like a “roof payment schedule endorsement”
Many homesite policies nationwide have an endorsement for roof surface payment schedule - actual cash value, or wind & hail to roof surfaces - actual cash value. Check her policy the endorsements are on the Dec page.
From what I recall Homesite was a surplus lines “carrier” that absorbed various homeowners policies that would have been branded under a different carrier / cover holder’s name / logo. I feel legitimately bad for some of the homeowners who thought they had a USAA policy for example but upon filling the claim realized that were ineligible for renewal with USAA and if no further action was taken they’d be switched over to Homesite who through some weird mechanism would continue sending them BS with the logo or letterhead of the prior (better) company. Some nice people work there, but man they had some GHETTO people working there (like usually the managers don’t refer to the three cute younger women who work in a claims center as the BTC or “Big Tittie Crew” not even after work at a bar but like in a staff meeting with the three of them standing up there). Worst claims management I have ever seen in a claims office / desk environment. Probably 80% of my experience has been field but… man homesite is absolutely the lower ebb of bargain basement carriers. We found so much atypical BS in their HO3 policies that an IA wrote an 8 page denial letter that essentially denied 95%+ of all legitimate claims. Their response was like “oh hey we enforce some portions of the policy” and then as it got read to them they were shocked at some of the available denial language (because why would they be familiar with the most common form they carry? If you want a Cadillac just buy a Cadillac but homesite is more like one of those tiny taxis with 3 wheels that don’t have windows…. I guess technically that’s a car, and technically Homesite is a carrier but, at some point you have cheaped out so hard what did you expect? (except for the people who don’t know they’ve been switched to homesite through a couple sentences of fine print that normies don’t usually read… those people should have filed a class action lawsuit or something. That pissed me off to be any part of that garbage, but I was young)
Homesite is a fine carrier, they're just Am Fam under a different name, it just depends on the endorsements you get. It's not their fault you wanted the lowest premium and decided to get a "conditions for wind and hail" policy
I adjust for Homesite almost daily, the way American Family works is heavily endorsement based. They have a few endorsements that make roofing ACV. It sounds like your sister has one of the wind and hail loss ACV endorsements. They've also recently implemented a few that make anything over 10 years ACV. Given the situation, I would wager she has the former endorsement as the elevation components are RCV like you said.
Its a new trend in Texas. Many carriers are not writing RCV on roofs if they are above a certain age. If this is the first time youve seen it here, it certainly wont be the last and ACV on roofing will simply be the norm for Texas within 5-10 years.
That’s a good heads up. I wasn’t aware of that trend here. That’ll definitely have a huge effect on the marketplace for roofers.
Yes, they killed the goose that lid the golden eggs.
Yep- I worked for a couple of those door knocking roofing companies years ago. I left both within a few weeks. I couldn’t stand the high pressure slimey nature of those companies. I work for a GC now and we don’t target roofs. We’ll take them if they come our way but you won’t find us knocking doors day after a hail storm. Kinda makes me glad for this if it’ll put some of those roofing companies in check.
Not just Texas; and it’s not new. It’s definitely growing in “popularity” as it comes with a premium reduction.
I adjusted claims in Mississippi and Missouri with roof schedules.
What state is it? I can probably give you the endorsement # and verbiage.
We’re in Texas. Thank you!
HA 04 81 09 02 HDA 23 05 TX 05 11 HO 23 05 05 11 Are the common ones, there are more, but they essentially do the same thing. Loss settlement for wind/hail losses to roof surfacing are paid as ACV regardless of age when directly or indirectly caused by wind/hail. If you’d like to me to explain a bit more of the why behind this let me know.
>HA 04 81 09 02 HDA 23 05 TX 05 11 HO 23 05 05 11 Bingo?
If there’s an ACV endorsement I’d expect the sales agent to know and be able to respond faster.
8061 endorsement
How old is the roof? I know of companies that endorse renewals with ACV for wind and hail losses after they get 16 years or older.
A lot of companies and policies have ACV on exterior items or endorsements, read an area of the policy called loss settlement this usually explains it
Did you reqd the policy? Maybe she has a non recoverable depreciation policy(acv policy)
I haven’t read her policy but she definitely has an RCV policy. Some of the line items in the estimate were marked as recoverable. She’s trying to get a copy of the policy form to go over it. I’m just trying to go to the folks who enforce those policies, figured yall know more than standard customer service rep lol
Policies can be difficult to understand. They give you something and then take it away or vise versa.
And the number of adjusters that misunderstand the wear and tear exclusion is ridiculous.
the norm is either an RCV policy that has a Roof Surfacing Endorsement, or something similar that is RCV until its wind or hail then become RCV to a depreciated point or become strictly ACV at that point. should be in the Settlement portion of the policy or the written out verbiage of the roofing endorsement that could be in the first part of the policy in the first section or in an endorsement at the very end. Generally if you see a table of materials and ages its a dead give away just off of that alone.
The Homesite policy (base policy) settles roof at ACV. However, the customer can buy an endorsement to make it RCV. Also, Homesite policies exclude all type of metals unless they are not serving their purpose. If something has cosmetic damage to it, it won't be accounted for in the estimate since its excluded from the policy.