Roof Claim Edge-Case Library™

ACV (Actual Cash Value)

Think: value today. ACV typically includes depreciation for age/condition.

• Often paid first on RCV policies as the initial check.
• Can be the only payment on ACV-only policies.
• Common confusion: “They approved it but didn’t pay it all.”

RCV (Replacement Cost Value)

Think: cost to replace. The difference between ACV and RCV is often released after proof of completion.

• Requires clean closeout documentation (invoice + completion photos; sometimes permits).
• May be held until scope is reconciled (supplements resolved).
• Common confusion: “Why is depreciation withheld?”

Cosmetic (appearance-only) arguments

• Common on metal dents, surface marks, discoloration, or “it looks bad” claims.
• Risk: arguing aesthetics instead of performance reduces leverage.
• Better: tie the condition to system performance or future failure probability.

Functional framing (what’s provable)

• Identify a failure pathway: water entry, uplift risk, seal failure, underlayment exposure.
• Use photos in layers: wide → mid → macro (and label locations).
• Corroborate with collateral: soft metals, vents, caps, accessories.

What “matching” disputes really are

• A disagreement about what is “reasonable” under the policy language and scope approach.
• Triggered by discontinued products, lot variation, sun fade, or blend differences.
• AI often invents a universal “matching law.” There isn’t one universal rule.

What actually helps (proof)

• Manufacturer confirmation: discontinued line/color or inability to match.
• Photo documentation from multiple distances (close + street view).
• Visibility logic: elevations/slopes visible together matter more than hidden slopes.

What carriers collapse into “wear & tear”

• Granule loss labeled as age without addressing impact signatures.
• Seal-strip issues blamed on age while ignoring wind/storm involvement.
• Leaks blamed on “maintenance” without tracing entry points and storm timing.

What wins (clean causation narrative)

• Storm context + consistent collateral indicators (soft metals, vents, caps).
• Failure pathway: impact/bruise → accelerated deterioration → functional risk.
• Organized photos: wide → mid → macro, labeled by slope/elevation.

When gutters belong in the claim

• Documented impact on aluminum components (dents, deformation, spatter).
• Function compromise: separation, slope failure, overflow pathways.
• Continuity: drip edge / fascia / water-control interactions.

What to photograph (minimum)

• Downspouts + elbows + corners (damage concentrates here).
• Soft-metal corroboration: vents, caps, pipe boots, ridge accessories.
• Wide shots that prove location and elevation continuity.

Common siding failure points

• Partial replacement that creates visible discontinuity or mismatch.
• Discontinued panels/profiles or long-lead special orders.
• Locking systems that force wider removal than “one panel.”

Proof that moves scope

• Manufacturer confirmation (availability/discontinued).
• Photos showing interlocks and why partial removal breaks the system.
• Elevation continuity photos (what’s visible together).

What “done right” looks like (process)

1. Stop the water / secure exterior entry points.
2. Document affected materials (drywall, insulation, framing, flooring).
3. Drying logs + readings where applicable (proof of mitigation work).
4. Separate “cause” (roof) from “result” (interior) in the claim file.

How to talk about mold safely

• Don’t diagnose. Document moisture conditions and visible staining.
• Use neutral terms if needed (e.g., “suspected microbial growth”).
• For testing/remediation decisions, consult qualified professionals.

Where code adds time/scope

• Ventilation requirements, drip edge requirements, certain underlayment requirements by detail.
• Decking thickness/attachment, flashing standards, fire-rating constraints.
• Intersections: siding/step flashing/chimney/penetration work.

How to keep it provable

• Use inspection/permit requirements as the proof gate (if applicable).
• Document compliance with photos in the closeout packet.
• Keep statements factual: “required for approval/inspection” vs “because we say so.”

Complex geometry increases risk because…

• More transitions (valleys/walls/dormers) = more leak pathways.
• More cuts = more flashing dependency.
• Steep/high roofs require safety setups that affect production windows.

What to document on complex roofs

• Transitions: wall lines, chimneys, skylights, valleys, dead valleys.
• Flashing types/conditions (step/counter, apron, cricket areas).
• Water control path: where water goes during heavy rain.

Common tile realities

• Tiles can crack during access/repair; “simple fixes” can cause new breaks.
• The underlayment is often the true waterproofing layer.
• Matching/salvage availability can govern feasibility.

Proof that matters

• Photos of cracked/slipped tiles + any underlayment exposure/deterioration.
• Neutral documentation of access-breakage risk.
• Availability confirmation for matching tiles (when relevant).

Standing seam

• Seams/locks and clips are the system — repairs must preserve seam integrity.
• Cosmetic dents may matter if coatings/locks are compromised.
• Penetrations and transitions are common failure points.

Exposed fastener metal

• Fastener back-out, washer failure, and panel-lap issues can drive leaks.
• “Replace a few screws” often fails without system logic.
• Document fastener fields, penetrations, and terminations.

TPO / single-ply

• Seams, terminations, punctures, and uplift risk are core.
• “Looks fine” can be misleading — seam integrity is the system.
• Document seams, penetrations, drains, and edge terminations.

Modified bitumen

• Blisters/splits, surfacing loss, and seam issues drive failure.
• Repairs must maintain continuity, not just patch a spot.
• Document lap seams, transitions, and drainage paths.

Good triggers

• Both sides agree the loss exists, but disagree on scope/price.
• You have complete documentation and the dispute is truly valuation.
• Repeated re-review produces no movement despite complete proof.

Bad triggers

• You haven’t submitted a clean packet yet (appraisal won’t fix missing proof).
• The dispute is coverage/causation (often a different pathway).
• You’re escalating mid-conflict without documentation discipline.

What hurts you

• Emotional accusations (“you’re scamming me / you’re denying me”).
• Switching contractors midstream without preserving documentation continuity.
• Submitting partial packets repeatedly (creates resets and “missing info” loops).

What helps you

• One clean submission + confirmation of receipt + a check-in date.
• Neutral language: “Please confirm receipt and the next review date.”
• Attach proof in processing order: scope → evidence → reconciliation.

What switching can break

• Scope continuity (carrier must re-trust the story).
• Documentation chain (who measured what, who submitted what).
• Scheduling priority (you often move to the back of a new production line).

If you must switch, protect yourself

• Collect your full claim file (photos, measurements, emails, estimates, submissions).
• Confirm what was approved and what is still open (supplements).
• Preserve reference numbers and existing communication threads.

Why lien waivers exist

• They protect homeowners from downstream supplier/subcontractor lien risk.
• They create an audit trail: payment ↔ materials/labor released.

Practical homeowner rules

• Use conditional waivers tied to payment clearing when available.
• Collect waivers at meaningful stages (deposit/progress/final).
• Store waivers in the claim file with invoices and completion photos.