That's a really good point about persistence. Had a similar headache last year when a tree branch damaged our shed roof. The insurer initially claimed it was "wear and tear," which honestly made me laugh—like, did the tree branch gently wear it down over time? Thankfully, I'd snapped some quick phone pics right after it happened. Took a few polite-but-firm calls, but they eventually came around. Definitely learned my lesson about reading the fine print carefully and documenting everything.
Glad you had those photos handy—funny how quickly insurers change their tune when there's clear proof. Makes me wonder, though, how much detail do most people actually document before something happens? Like, do you regularly take pictures of your property just in case, or was this more of a lucky coincidence?
I ask because I've seen plenty of situations where homeowners genuinely had no clue about the condition of their roof or siding until damage occurred. Then they're scrambling to prove it wasn't already falling apart. Seems like insurance companies bank on that uncertainty sometimes.
Also curious if anyone here has ever successfully challenged an insurer's definition of "wear and tear"? I mean, branches falling are clearly sudden events, but what about less obvious stuff—like gradual leaks or cracks that suddenly become serious after a storm? Where exactly is the line drawn between normal aging and actual damage?
Kind of makes me think there should be clearer guidelines or examples provided upfront by insurers. Maybe even some sort of checklist homeowners could follow each year to avoid these disputes altogether. Has anyone's insurer ever proactively offered something like that, or is it always just buried somewhere deep in the fine print?
I never really thought about documenting anything until I started working in roofing. After seeing a few homeowners struggle with proving storm damage vs. wear and tear, I got paranoid and snapped some pics of my own roof just to be safe. Never had to use them yet, but it makes me wonder if insurers count on most of us not bothering to do that... Seems like clearer definitions and examples would help everyone out.
"After seeing a few homeowners struggle with proving storm damage vs. wear and tear, I got paranoid and snapped some pics of my own roof just to be safe."
That's actually a really smart move. I've been wondering about this myself lately—just bought my first house last year, and the whole insurance fine print thing has been driving me nuts. They always seem to have these vague terms like "reasonable wear" or "typical deterioration," but who decides what's reasonable or typical?
I mean, if my roof gets hit by a storm, how am I supposed to prove it wasn't already worn out? Do insurers expect us all to climb up there every month and document every shingle? 😂 Honestly though, it's not like they give homeowners clear guidelines or examples of what exactly counts as storm damage versus normal aging.
Your post actually made me realize I probably should start snapping some photos too... maybe even videos? But then again, how detailed should we get? Do we document just the roof, or should we also photograph gutters, siding, windows—basically anything that could potentially get damaged?
Also makes me wonder: do insurers intentionally keep these definitions vague because they know most of us won't take the time to document regularly? Or maybe it's just oversight on their part, assuming homeowners will magically know what's needed when filing a claim.
I don't know... feels like insurance companies could save themselves (and us!) a lot of headaches by simply providing clearer examples upfront. It'd probably cut down on disputes too, right?
Taking photos is definitely smart, but have you thought about getting a professional roof inspection every year or two? Having an official report might carry more weight with insurers than DIY pics... might save some headaches down the road.
