Roof Claim Edge-Case Library™

ACV (Actual Cash Value)

• Often the initial payment on an RCV policy.
• Includes depreciation based on age/condition assumptions.
• Common confusion: “They approved it but didn’t pay it all.”

RCV (Replacement Cost Value)

• Recoverable depreciation is commonly released after proof of completion.
• Requires clean closeout: invoice + completion photos (+ permit closeout if required).
• Common blocker: scope mismatch or missing closeout evidence.

Cosmetic arguments (what gets stuck)

• “It looks bad” is weak in desk review.
• Dents/marks/discoloration often get filtered as appearance-only.
• Debating aesthetics creates long loops.

Functional framing (what’s reviewable)

• Identify a failure pathway (seal failure, uplift risk, water entry risk).
• Use layers: wide → mid → macro, labeled by location.
• Corroborate with collateral: vents, caps, soft metals, accessories.

What matching disputes really are

• A scope disagreement tied to policy language and “reasonable” repair approach.
• Triggered by discontinued product lines, lot variation, and sun fade.
• AI often invents universal “matching rules.” Don’t do that.

Proof that moves scope

• Manufacturer confirmation of discontinued/unavailable match.
• Photos from multiple distances (close + street view).
• Visibility logic: slopes/elevations seen together matter more.

What gets collapsed into “wear & tear”

• Granule loss labeled as age without addressing impact signatures.
• Seal issues blamed on age while storm involvement is ignored.
• Leaks blamed on “maintenance” without tracing entry pathways.

What wins (clean causation narrative)

• Storm context + collateral indicators (soft metals/accessories).
• Distribution patterns that look like storm, not random mechanical damage.
• Scope reconciliation: line items tied to specific proof.

When gutters belong in the claim

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

Minimum photo set

• Corners + elbows + downspouts (damage concentrates here).
• Corroboration: vents, caps, pipe boots, ridge accessories.
• Wide shots that prove location and elevation continuity.

Common failure points

• Partial replacement that creates visible discontinuity.
• Discontinued panels/profiles or long-lead special orders.
• Interlock 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 (what’s visible together).

Process that stays clean

1. Stop the water / secure entry points first.
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 it safely

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

Where code adds scope/time

• Ventilation and certain detail requirements (drip edge, underlayment by detail).
• Decking attachment/condition, flashing standards, fire-rating constraints.
• Intersections: siding/step flashing/chimney/penetrations.

How to keep it provable

• Use permit/inspection requirements as the proof gate (when applicable).
• Document compliance with photos in the closeout packet.
• Keep language 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.

Minimum documentation on complex roofs

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

Tile realities

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

Proof that matters

• Cracked/slipped tiles + any underlayment exposure/deterioration.
• Neutral documentation of access-breakage risk.
• Availability confirmation for matching tile (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

• Fastener back-out, washer failure, and lap issues can drive leaks.
• “Replace a few screws” 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.
• Your packet is complete, and the dispute is truly valuation.
• Repeated re-review produces no movement despite clean proof.

Bad triggers

• You haven’t submitted one 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 and “fight language.”
• Switching contractors midstream without preserving continuity.
• Submitting partial packets repeatedly (creates resets).

What helps you

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

What switching can break

• Scope continuity (the file loses trust and resets).
• Documentation chain (who measured/submitted what).
• Scheduling priority (often back of the new production line).

If you must switch, protect yourself

• Collect your entire claim file (photos, measurements, emails, estimates, submissions).
• Confirm what’s approved and what’s 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 with invoices and completion photos in the claim file.