Did you guys check if the shingles had granule loss or creasing? Sometimes adjusters overlook those signs and just jump straight to "aging." Also, was there any hail or wind damage visible on gutters or vents? I've seen roofs that looked fine from the ground but were toast once you got up close—storms can really speed up deterioration. Did you push back with photos or a second opinion from another roofer? Insurance adjusters can be stubborn, but solid evidence usually helps...usually.
"I've seen roofs that looked fine from the ground but were toast once you got up close—storms can really speed up deterioration."
This is spot-on. Had a similar situation last summer:
- Roof looked decent from below, homeowner thought it was just minor wear.
- Got up there and found tons of granule loss, especially on the south-facing slopes.
- Adjuster initially brushed it off as "normal aging," even though we had clear hail impacts on vents and gutters.
- Took detailed close-up photos showing clear creasing and granule piles in gutters.
- Homeowner got a second roofer's opinion backing us up.
After submitting the additional evidence, insurance finally budged. Took some persistence, though. Seems like adjusters often default to "aging" unless you really push back with solid proof. Always worth documenting thoroughly—photos, notes, even short videos if possible.
Had something similar happen a couple years back. Roof seemed okay from street level, but when we climbed up, shingles were cracked and brittle—clearly storm-related. Insurance adjuster insisted it was just "normal wear," even with obvious hail dents on metal flashing. Ended up hiring an independent inspector whose detailed report finally convinced insurance to cover it. Lesson learned: document everything thoroughly and don't hesitate to get another set of eyes involved if things feel off...
"Insurance adjuster insisted it was just 'normal wear,' even with obvious hail dents on metal flashing."
Had almost the exact same thing happen last summer. Adjuster brushed it off as "typical aging," but we knew something wasn't right. Ended up getting a roofer friend to take a quick look—turns out we had clear storm damage. Sent his photos and notes to insurance, and suddenly they changed their tune. Definitely pays to get a second opinion if something feels off...
Had a similar experience myself a couple years back. Adjuster came out, took one glance, and said it was just "regular aging." I wasn't convinced—especially since I'd been up there recently to clean gutters and didn't recall seeing any dents before the hailstorm. Decided to document everything myself: took close-up shots of the flashing, shingles, and even grabbed some measurements to show the size and depth of the dents. Sent all that over along with weather reports from the storm date, and suddenly the insurance folks reconsidered their position. Funny how quickly "normal wear" turned into "covered damage" once they saw detailed evidence... Moral of the story: never hurts to gather your own data and push back a bit if something seems fishy.
