In the past six months, I have seen the majority of the insurance adjusters modify their scoping practices/methods in a number of different areas relating to roofing. They used to apply the waste % to the replace portion of steep, steep>, steep>> and high. In general, this is no longer done, they simply use the remove number for both with no waste applied. They all seem to want to group more and more into the waste number and are stuck on the traditional 10% waste for gables, 15% for hips regardless of the complexity and number of slopes.
I went online with Xactimate Support last week to attempt to discuss this. No surprise, the tech support person couldn’t answer questions like this but provided me with a free direct call support session to inquire further. I was eventually passed over to someone in pricing at Xactimate. He promised to follow up with pricing management at Xactimate. Frankly, I doubt that but you never know. I did manage to get his email address however and sent a follow up email as shown below.
For those of you who do insurance work and/or rely on Xactimate, these are issues that impact us all. I would propose that all of you contact Xactimate to inquire about these same issues. It is more likely that Xactimate would respond should the volume of inquiries be great enough to get their attention and force action.
Following is the body of the email I sent to the Xactimate pricing person:
I was wondering how you are coming on the subjects we spoke about last week? I have also condensed my inquiry into some specific questions as shown below, including explanation for those. I believe these are quite relevant to understand in order to properly scope a roof replacement.
- Does Xactimate roof pricing reflect the fact that the majority of the manufacturers only supply 98.4 square feet of material per square? ThatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s right, a square isnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t a square. What this means is that for every 20.8 squares, an additional bundle has to be purchased. This would affect the price by 1.6%.
- Does the remove portion of roofing (RFG 240 -) include the cost for removing and disposing of starter, hip/ridge cap, valley layer, lo profile vents (turtle type), pipe jack boots, valley metal or ridge vent? Many insurance companies will only pay for the replace portion of vents, for example, stating the removal is grouped in with the shingle removal. The description for shingle removal doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t reflect this, what is fact? As relates to starter, hip/ridge cap and the layer of shingles under a valley, this is rather significant, 10 to 15% of the roof amount.
- When pricing a roof replacement, what is considered to be included in waste?
- When pricing a roof window flashing kit, what data is utilized? The description states material cost and labor included. In the areas we serve, this price often doesnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t cover the material cost itself much less the labor required to install it. I can provide receipts or pricing proof, just check a velux price sheet.
- How does Xactimate plan to address the new warranties being utilized by major shingle manufacturers? In case youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re not aware, GAF and Owens Corning have changed the warranty on their 30 Year Dimensional Shingles to Lifetime. They did not however make any physical changes to the product. People who are getting a roof replacement who had previously purchase a shingle with a lifetime warranty would be getting severely short changed by getting it replaced with these new warranties by GAF and OC. It is highly likely the remainder of the shingle industry will follow this lead soon.
- When calculating the remove/replace for steep, steep>, steep>> and high, it was always customary to apply the waste percentage to the replace number. I assume this is why Xactimate automatically breaks this into two line items. In the past 6 months, insurance companies have generally quit applying the waste factor to the replace portion of these charges. This makes no sense whatsoever to me. The question though is how is Xactimate pricing the replace number? At present, it should be weighting this price with the additional cost due to waste as the waste % is not being applied.
Again, per our conversation, I feel it is the responsibility of Xactimate to explain in some detail the descriptions for the pricing of the individual line items. This pricing is supposed to reflect market conditions but cannot have much validity if there is extreme variance in how the numbers are in fact used in the scoping of jobs/repairs. It is my opinion this ambiguity servers no one and in fact could potentially undermine the justification for utilizing Xactimate as the STANDARD for insurance claims.
I look forward to your prompt response on these maters.