Really weird question.

We moved into our house in April 22. We had the house inspected and at that time our inspector said that the roof appeared to have lost some granulation but that it was consistent with age of the roof and that the roof was functioning as intended.

Since we moved in neighbor mentioned a hail storm and all the houses around us had hail damage and had the roofs replaced.

We've had a few heavy rains recently, and I have noticed a great deal of grit at the bottom of the downspouts. I also just got a new insurance quote and they want to inspect the roof because online photos on har.com show "the roof may be losing some granulation".

Our last house did have hail damage to the roof and we had to have it replaced. I had to have two inspections, because the first inspector claimed that there was no hail damage. It was explained to me that it might not be obvious right now that the roof was hail damaged, but that the hail damage did actually reduce the life of the roof significantly and that it would be obvious some day when it rained and I lost a whole lot of granulation. I'm experiencing that now in this house. We don't have any roof leaks, but it seems pretty evident that this house may have had roof damage that our inspector either didn't catch or that was not evident at the time of the inspection.

Once the previous owners have sold the house is it too late to make a claim on their homeowners policy for damage that occurred while that policy was in effect? I wouldn't be asking them to take on any financial burden, but to simply make the claim on their policy. I would expect if the policy paid out, we would pay the entire deductible.

I have no idea whether we could get them agree to make a claim but my question is whether they can even make a claim on a policy that is now expired for damage that occurred while the policy was in effect and while they owned the house.

I would suggest you find Jason from Infinity Roofers on the home improvement board and see what he thinks.

Thanks.

I assume your insurance company said there was no claim history on that roof?

aggiepaintrain said:

---

I assume your insurance company said there was no claim history on that roof?

---

My current insurance company is Chubb and they made no issue of the roof. I'm paying exorbitant insurance premiums to Chubb so I shopped around and found a new company. They brought up the issue with the roof, Chubb didn't mention anything about the roof to us.

There shouldn't be any issue with actually making the claim I wouldn't think. The main issue might be getting the sellers to agree to making it. I guess you could possibly make it yourself if you knew who it was with. How long ago was the policy in place and how long ago was hail storm?

Not an insurance guy.... just my thoughts. I'm sure someone here has more fact based info.

Have you tried filing a claim with Chubb?

Why? Any damage to this roof would have occurred prior to them insuring the asset. If I bought a new car that was damaged and insured it, I wouldn't expect my insurance company to cover the damage on the car that was there when I bought it. Am I missing something about homeowners insurance?

Again, I'm not sure I have a problem. New insurer is requiring an inspection because they have suspicions based on photos they found online.

And in that scenario would you expect the previous car insurance company to take your word for it and pay for the repair even though it was inspected, purchased, and changed owners and insurance providers?

I wouldn't expect them to take my word. If there's record of a hail storm on a date that occurred during the time that policy was held, it wouldn't seem outrageous.

It's not like hail damage could've been sustained on a sunny day. It's pretty easy to document when hail damage occurred there's been no hail, since the house was sold, but there was hail, while the previous owners owned it.

Anyway, I don't even know if I'll go there but I am curious if it's even a possibility. I need to get the roof inspected either way because the new insurance company requires it. Guess I'll find out.

combat wombat said:

---

I wouldn't expect them to take my word. If there's record of a hail storm on a date that occurred during the time that policy was held, it wouldn't seem outrageous.

It's not like hail damage could've been sustained on a sunny day. It's pretty easy to document when hail damage occurred there's been no hail, since the house was sold, but there was hail, while the previous owners owned it.

---

And as the previous insurance company my first question would be why didn't the inspection catch it if there was in fact already hail damage?

I think you try to make the claim on the previous policy; worst case, they just say no and you move on. Worth a shot...

htxag09 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

I wouldn't expect them to take my word. If there's record of a hail storm on a date that occurred during the time that policy was held, it wouldn't seem outrageous.

It's not like hail damage could've been sustained on a sunny day. It's pretty easy to document when hail damage occurred there's been no hail, since the house was sold, but there was hail, while the previous owners owned it.

---

And as the previous insurance company my first question would be why didn't the inspection catch it if there was in fact already hail damage?

---

Because inspections miss stuff ALL of the time?

If you make the claim with the previous insurance and it gets approved more power to you. As someone else said, doesn't hurt to try.

But I just feel like the "inspections miss stuff" excuse isn't a very good one. I mean you're essentially agreeing in a written contract that you're accepting the current condition of the house. That's why inspections are done beforehand. Obviously there are exceptions around sellers intentionally hiding things. But not like the ac could break 6 weeks later or old pipes clog and/or leak and you claim well the inspection missed it.

Personally, if I was the seller I don't see a scenario where I agree to try and make a claim. Just seems like I'd be putting myself into the middle of a scenario I don't want to be in and even potentially opening myself up as to saying I knew the roof had hail damage but failed to disclose it to close the deal.

I'm really sorry I didn't see this thread sooner. I havnt dropped in on this board that much. I'm also sorry for the word salad that follows but I'm hammering this out on my phone. I'll clean it up as time permits.

BEFORE YOU CHANGE CARRIERS, make sure you decide what you want to do in terms of replacing. The current carrier sounds like your best shot. The new one is going to cost you money out of pocket.

If you already changed carriers then some of my post is no longer applicable and a different course of action needs to occur. I'll edit once I understand better.

To answer your question….if the previous owner is not currently holding a policy for that roof, I am not aware of any way they could make a claim, even if it's retroactively.

However, you have a couple do things going for you…

1. You said you'd agree to pay their deductible. So, if that's true, why don't you just pay your own and make a claim because ….

2. your carrier approved the roof for coverage under your policy which means they have no issue with its condition and now….

3. You may have a legitimate claim because there is an issue with granular loss and likely hail damage.

My email is in my profile if you want to discuss further but I could look at the address against my hail data. If there is a recent storm that is after your insurance took effect and you want to replace the roof, you have a good chance.

Otherwise, if you have no leaks, then you can wait for a new solid hail storm and do it then.

Granular loss is a part of the aging process and while hail can exacerbate the issue, roofs are going to shed anyway after they get older. So, my point is that your inspector may not have been able to see the hail damage or he may have assumed it's age was the cause.

I had the advantage of looking at an Ags roof the day after a hail storm. There was easily identifiable hail damage. I took Tons of photos because he didn't want to replace the roof just yet as we was going to sell. He called me 7 months later to get ready to sell the house and we made a claim. 2 denied claims occurred because you couldn't see the damage any longer. After they agreed to accept my photos with time stamps, they paid for the roof.

So, long story short is that your situation is likely just a result of somewhat unfortunate events but none that scream liability or wrongdoing necessarily. A roofer may have been able to identify it but that's not guaranteed. I do reports for Realtors, buyers, and sellers all the time for this reason. Inspectors are fine but he looks at everything in a home. He has to be an expert in a lot of things. My only area of focus is roofing. I look at it all the time and I know exactly what I'm looking for in terms of determining condition. That's not a slam against inspectors.

Another point for everyone and anyone is that if you have a storm or suspected damage, get it checked out by someone that knows what they are looking for as soon as possible even if you don't necessarily want to do the work right now. You have a full year to make the repair or replacement from the time of your claim.

Finally in terms of you making a claim. The carrier thinks your roof is fine. It matters not that the hail damage is old or new and you shouldn't mention anything of the sort. The coverage is for an undamaged roof which is what they stated when you signed up with them. It is damaged now and that's the story.

EDIT TO ADD: The previous owner can file the claim but they must initiate it.

To answer your question, yes, the previous owner can make a claim if the incident occurred when they were insured with the carrier.