roofing question.

[Txwalt]

I have the claim from the insurance company and I have a quote from a contractor. The claim is actually more than the quote. The thing is even though the claim is more than the quote I have to pay for the deductible no matter what. I understand this and it makes total sense to me. However I pinch pennies and I know I can replace the roof myself. The insurance company said if I do it myself they will cut me a check for the total amount of the claim minus the deductible. Basically I'll still come out ahead cash wise but I'll have to put the time into replacing the roof. The claim is itemized though. I had planned on putting shingles over the existing shingles and not replacing vents or gutters. The claim has itemized removal/disposal of shingles and replacing the vents and gutters. Will the insurance company still cut me a check for the total claim or cut me a check minus what I didn't do? I know a bunch of ya'll would like to speculate but I'm really looking for the real deal here.

Walt

 

[Jogeephus]

If you don't do it I wouldn't think they would pay you for it. Or at least they shouldn't. To me, taking the money and not doing the work that the quote is based on is fraud. JMO

 

[Txwalt]

I guess I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I recieved money from the insurance company for the hail damage on my truck. I'm going to try to fix certain really noticable dings on my truck. Not all the dings they gave me the money for.

Walt

 

[Jogeephus]

There isn't any other way to look at it. If they allotted $100 for gutters, $100 for shingles, $100 for removing and disposal of old shingles and a $100 for redoing the caps, etc. then the total they should pay you is $400 less you deduct. If you do it yourself and do everything the way its quoted then they should have to pay you the same amount. But if you only stick some shingles on the house then they should only pay you the $100 less the deductible.

Another way of looking at it is this. If I quoted you $400 to do all these things and I only did one of them - would you pay me? I doubt it. You would probably call me a crook.

 

[HerefordSire]

The labor cost would be the difference if you do it yourself and are ethical.

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

Too many moral/ethical issues here.

Bottomline: The adjuster turned in the amount of damage for "someone" to do the work, less deductible. Take the insurance check. How you spend it is up to you...you have paid numerous premiums (I assume). Now, IF you don't do all the work that they paid you for...AND you have another claim on the same building...the adjuster will then disallow the amount equal to the amount of work that was NOT done.

You paid for the insurance. The damage occurred. You are due a settlement check from insurance company. WHO does the work and WHEN is nobodys business except yours...

IMHO

 

[Txwalt]

Its not a question of ethics. There will be someone that comes out and looks at the roof from the insurance company. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes. I want to know what the insurance company is going to do. I will take a hit on resale if I do it the way I described.

I suppose if the insurance company cut you a check for truck damage that was more than you thought it should be you would pay them back the difference.

Walt

 

[VanC]

Why not tell the insurance company what you have in mind? Then they can tell you what they will do.

 

[hillsdown]

Van has a good point and then you know where you stand. As far as fixing it you might as well do it right and properly the first time, When they come out to reevaluate the insurance value of your home you will be docked for cutting corners it will also effect your appraisal value and with property prices the way they are now I don't think that is in your best interest..

I don't know how your insurance company works but with mine they will pay for labor if someone else does it if I do it myself they will only pay for expenses..

 

[Jogeephus]

Its not a question of ethics. There will be someone that comes out and looks at the roof from the insurance company. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes. I want to know what the insurance company is going to do. I will take a hit on resale if I do it the way I described.

I used to have a job shovelling out governtment money and I'll tell you how I would approach it. I didn't give a rat's arse who did the work but before I signed off on the job and my shovel went into the pile it had better be done to the specs on the job. If not, I started deducting. I pi$$ed a lot of people off. People who kept telling me that I didn't know who they were. (I loved that line) But the way I viewed it, I wasn't about to pay someone money for something they didn't do. I viewed my job as a trustee of your and my tax dollars unfortunately I was only one of a few that viewed it this way.

So this leads me to my next thought. If they are willing to pay you to take the shingles off your house and replace them why not take them up on it? If you don't, you will have a double job the next time you have to refoof the house. And too, by taking the shinggles off and putting more tar paper down you will be able to see and fix any nails or problems you might have underneath the shingles.

You are actually lucky they are not deducting the wear and tear of the shingles based on the age. Some companies here are pro-rating them based on a 25 year life expectancy. This in itself is a plus.

I suppose if the insurance company cut you a check for truck damage that was more than you thought it should be you would pay them back the difference.

My insurance company doesn't do it this way. They only cut a check to the vendor once the work is completed to their specs and my satisfaction. Anything not done is not paid for.

 

[Txwalt]

Its not a question of ethics. There will be someone that comes out and looks at the roof from the insurance company. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyones eyes. I want to know what the insurance company is going to do. I will take a hit on resale if I do it the way I described.

I used to have a job shovelling out governtment money and I'll tell you how I would approach it. I didn't give a rat's arse who did the work but before I signed off on the job and my shovel went into the pile it had better be done to the specs on the job. If not, I started deducting. I pi$$ed a lot of people off. People who kept telling me that I didn't know who they were. (I loved that line) But the way I viewed it, I wasn't about to pay someone money for something they didn't do. I viewed my job as a trustee of your and my tax dollars unfortunately I was only one of a few that viewed it this way.

So this leads me to my next thought. If they are willing to pay you to take the shingles off your house and replace them why not take them up on it? If you don't, you will have a double job the next time you have to refoof the house. And too, by taking the shinggles off and putting more tar paper down you will be able to see and fix any nails or problems you might have underneath the shingles.

You are actually lucky they are not deducting the wear and tear of the shingles based on the age. Some companies here are pro-rating them based on a 25 year life expectancy. This in itself is a plus.

I suppose if the insurance company cut you a check for truck damage that was more than you thought it should be you would pay them back the difference.

My insurance company doesn't do it this way. They only cut a check to the vendor once the work is completed to their specs and my satisfaction. Anything not done is not paid for.

This is a insurance question. Not a government contract.

Walt

 

[Jogeephus]

Common, you know its the same thing. You stated yourself that the quote was based on certain things being done. What you are talking about - unless I misread something - is not doing half of what they are willing to pay you for and keeping the difference. Why should they pay you if you don't do it? You wouldn't pay a contractor if he didn't do it.

 

[Txwalt]

Common, you know its the same thing. You stated yourself that the quote was based on certain things being done. What you are talking about - unless I misread something - is not doing half of what they are willing to pay you for and keeping the difference. Why should they pay you if you don't do it? You wouldn't pay a contractor if he didn't do it.

Insurance is to compensate you for damage. Wether I fix that damage or not is my business.

The past 12 years the insurance company has been making money off of me. Now they get to write a check. I'm supposed to feel bad and worry about ethics? I suppose the insurance company has been thinking they are unethical for collecting checks from me every month for the past 12 years?

You come on!

Walt

 

[Jogeephus]

Common, you know its the same thing. You stated yourself that the quote was based on certain things being done. What you are talking about - unless I misread something - is not doing half of what they are willing to pay you for and keeping the difference. Why should they pay you if you don't do it? You wouldn't pay a contractor if he didn't do it.

Insurance is to compensate you for damage. Wether I fix that damage or not is my business.

The past 12 years the insurance company has been making money off of me. Now they get to write a check. I'm supposed to feel bad and worry about ethics? I suppose the insurance company has been thinking they are unethical for collecting checks from me every month for the past 12 years?

You come on!

Walt

To me, ethics should know no boundaries. I choose to live by the golden rule and will continue to do so whether it lines my pockets or not. You asked an opinion and I gave it. I disagree with your justifications but that is just my opinion and it is worth exactly what you paid for it. :tiphat:

 

[Txwalt]

The more I think about this the madder I get. I suppose if my house got demolished by a flood or a tornado and I decided not to rebuild I should get nothing? What the hell is insurance for? If I wreck my truck do I have to buy another truck or get mine fixed with the money? Ya'll are about to give me a damn heart attack. I walked into bizaro world in one of the only places I can go to for sanity. I'm so disappointed.

Walt

 

[angie1]

Will the insurance company still cut me a check for the total claim or cut me a check minus what I didn't do?

Walt

The insurance company cut a whole check for what the appraiser said needed to be done when there was hail damage done at the farm. The whole thing ~ no questions asked.

(I bought a used car.)
(I sleep well at night.)

 

[pwilli3]

I'm with you Walt. The amount the insurance company pays on a claim is totally based on fixing the damages completely. If you choose not to fix the damages to that spec, you are still incurring the cost in other ways (i.e. lesser appraisal) therefore the money allotted is fully yours. What you choose not to fix is, quite simply, balanced out with opportuinity cost.

The difference between this and contracting someone to do the work is vast. Only the owner of the structure has the luxury of such a decision. The government contracting argument only holds water if you do hire someone to do the full job to certain specs and they do not do it. Then your claim is against the contractor, not the insurer.

In other words, take the money. Make the structure livable to your standards, and retain the leftovers. You are assuming an added cost that is not immediately tangible.

 

[Wisteria Farms]

Ditto...Walt, people do it all the time... as well as go get "bogus" estimates...Is it right? No. But its also not right that I work my butt off to put groceries on the table and then stand in line behind someone with food stamps driving a Cadillac. We "proper" people are cheated because we "play by the rules" so in today's economy if you can get that insurance money and use it towards something NEEDED... then go for it. The fact that you are expressing guilt over doing the work yourself shows you are NOT the (white, black, hispanic) trash that makes a living off abusing the system.

I'll tell you a good one... I have employees that have been with me FOREVER...(so my unemployment rate is LOW) I hire a loser out of the union hall and lay him off after repeatedly showing up to work smelling like booze (should have fired him)...well, he decides to sit on unemployment (refusing work) for the max time allowed and my unemployment rate shoots through the roof. I then have to pay over $13,000 for the first quarter of '08 (higher rate based on entire payroll) due to this low life S.O.B....

When you're on the other end of the "stick" it changes your perspective a bit...now that's all I'm going to say because I'm not lookin to pick a fight with anyone... just don't see anything wrong with Walt doing his own work the way he wants...

 

[lavacarancher]

Common, you know its the same thing. You stated yourself that the quote was based on certain things being done. What you are talking about - unless I misread something - is not doing half of what they are willing to pay you for and keeping the difference. Why should they pay you if you don't do it? You wouldn't pay a contractor if he didn't do it.

Insurance is to compensate you for damage. Wether I fix that damage or not is my business.

The past 12 years the insurance company has been making money off of me. Now they get to write a check. I'm supposed to feel bad and worry about ethics? I suppose the insurance company has been thinking they are unethical for collecting checks from me every month for the past 12 years?

You come on!

Walt

I don't think so, Walt. It is the insurance company's business if the job is done or done right. They are insuring the VALUE of your home against loss. If your home is valued at say $100,000 and insured for that amount then anything done (or not done) to the home that would DEVALUE that amount would be tantamont to fraud IMO.

Suppose you did what you are saying you want to do and you get away with it. Six months later you have water damage due to a leak in the roof. You call the insurance company and they look at the roof and see you didn't do a tear off and replace, you nailed over the existing roof - the one they paid you to replace. How do you think that's going to influence this claim?

Not trying to pi$$ anyone off just trying to shed a different light on the matter.

 

[Jim62]

I don't think that "insurance company" and "ethical" should be used in the same post. The insurance company's job is to make sure you pay your premiums, and should you have a potential claim, to figure out how to get out of paying you.

I would have no problem taking their check and doing (or not doing) whatever I thought with it.