the distinction for an insurance company is a roof that needs replacement due to windstorm or hail damage vs. just wear and tear. Both roofs could need replacement but only one would (technically) be covered under insurance.

Diggity said:

---

the distinction for an insurance company is a roof that needs replacement due to windstorm or hail damage vs. just wear and tear. Both roofs could need replacement but only one would (technically) be covered under insurance.

---

so I still , honestly, am asking the same question. IF the roof is FUNCTIONING, as in NOT leaking, BUT some inspector says it needs replacing due to " wear and tear" whatever that means do you think that the seller is under some obligation to spend the $15k to remedy the " wear and tear" on a FUNCTIONING roof. I assume that any roof that has leaks will automatically quality for replacement on any legitimate insurance policy.

I'm asking cause this is happening now in my hood to most of the homes being sold. We are all 15-17 year old homes built by the same builder. I am selling next year and just had a full roof inspection done by my new insurance policy's inspector ( who is also a TREC guy) and he said that the roof is fully functional AND insurable , no need for replacement BUT it shows the 17 years of wear and tear.

WHO said IT isn't LEAKING?????

if it's just an old leaky roof, your insurance company has no obligation to replace it.

Diggity said:

---

WHO said IT isn't LEAKING????? A INSPECTOR AND MY FLASHLIGHT IN A HURRICANE !

if it's just an old leaky roof, your insurance company has no obligation to replace it.

---

ok...so if its a leak issue why not simply repair the leaks vs a new roof ? Again its like the AC thing. If the AC is simply old and can be fully functional via routine repair and maintenance BUT it is old and obsolete does the seller have to ( or should) pony up for a new one ?
AND if my roof is old BUT has NO LEAKS but does show the 17 years of " wear and tear" and some buyer demands a new roof .....what are the best options ???? Isn't " wear and tear" subjective ? ( assuming no leaks)

if your roof is 17 years old and has no leaks, I would tell them to fly a kite

Diggity said:

---

if your roof is 17 years old and has no leaks, I would tell them to fly a kite

---

it helped that the wife worked for the builder when we built this place so we got an upgraded roof AND at about 2-3 years old had one of her roofing crews climb all over it and look for any leaks or flaws. But YES..I spent a lot of time during the Harvey rain with my flashlight crawling all over the attic looking for any signs of water or leaks. Couldn't find any .

The Original AG 76 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Absolute said:

---

I would say the roof should be their responsibility. If it is that old and has damage there is a chance your insurance would not even insure it. You might ask your insurance to confirm they would cover it.

The ac, on the other hand, kind of is what it is. Replacement is pretty much an upgrade. You need to be prepared to do it as needed.

---

As a current seller... If you ask me to replace the AC, I'm installing the cheapest, lowest efficiency unit I can find that satisfies the agreement. I no longer care about long term cost of maintenance or operation. Same goes for the roof. I'm going to find the cheapest 30 yr shingles I can find and have them installed.

If they offer cash instead, take it and do the repairs to your specifications.

---

In general I agree. Seller has no incentive to spend money.

As a home inspector I see this all the time. IF the AC works, old is not really negotiable, imo. Having the specialist tell you it needs updating is not surprising, but still doesn't make it negotiable to me. As someone said, old is worked into the price in theory.

Roof is a little different since insurance is involved, both the seller's old policy and the buyer's upcoming new policy. If the seller has made a claim and not replaced the roof that is their bad and they need to eat it now. If they have not made a claim and still can make one via their insurance, that is the most common sense and reasonable way to get it replaced. Insurance will pay for the same quality replacement and the buyer can also specify such in the addendum. Insurance for the buyer may very well write a policy, then come back and say the damage was before their policy was in force and they won't cover the roof. Then rub salt in the wound by requiring that the new homeowner replace it immediately out of pocket to maintain insurance and therefore a mortgage. Personally, I would not agree to cover the seller's deductible as a buyer. Particularly when there is a pretty good chance they don't even pay it to the roofer.

I have seen sellers insist that a roof is perfectly fine after I said it was trashed and multiple roofers confirm and the buyer's insurance says they won't write a policy due to the roof. Rational common sense is not a given.

---

Absolute....
What is the best avenue when the buyers inspector says the roof needs replacement BUT the sellers insurance company sends an inspector and says NO it does NOT warrant replacement ? OF course a roofing company will claim it needs replacement , its how they eat ! Are TREC inspectors qualified as roof inspectors ? What if the seller had a TREC inspector out before putting the home on the market and he certified the roof as OK !
I assume that eventually you just tell the buyer to walk, no reason for the seller to spend $15-$20k on a new roof that may not need fixing.

---

Unfortunately, opinions are subjective and can differ on a given subject roof. Most TREC inspectors probably are not insurance adjusters but should be qualified to inspect the roof for visible issues. Even if they were adjusters, opinions can still differ. I would disagree that all roofing companies will automatically say a roof needs replacement, though it can certainly happen. I have seen many cases where there are multiple opinions on what needs to happen. Unfortunately they are always influenced by the viewpoint of the individual, buyer wants it replaced, seller doesn't, etc. Negotiation is necessary and yes, sometimes you just agree to walk.

Insurance is there to cover the roof from damage caused by a specific event. As Diggity said, it is absolutely possible for a roof to need replacement from "wear and tear" and old age rather than a specific storm event. Unfortunately, in that case, the insurance company is not likely to want to help. I have seen/heard that insurance companies are starting to get reluctant to cover roofs that are 15 years or older. Because they know they are going to show a lot of wear and tear (talking about Texas type weather areas.) The more age and wear and tear there is the harder it is to distinguish damage from a specific event.

In your case, the inspector you hired really cannot "certify" anything. He gave you his opinion on the condition. You are likely at an impasse and even worse, technically, you are supposed to disclose information from both inspection reports.

The moral is that you really don't want to end up in the situation where you have a standard 20 or 30 year composition roof that is older than 15 years. Ideally, you want a nice defined hail storm around 10 years so you can make a clear claim and get replacement with insurance help. Unfortunately, one cannot control the weather. But this is definitely the reason you don't want to ignore checking for the need for a claim when you have a storm that you think might have damaged to roof.