*
I’m dealing with my first shingle failure in 25+ years of construction. The roof in question is about 7 years old and the shingles are curling.
The problem is cosmetic at this time-the roofing is still pliable and shedding water. Ventalation has not been the issue here, as it was addressed
at the time it was reroofed.
The problem is the shingle producer’s warrenty is pro-rated and is now only only offering a percentage of the original cost of the shingles, in this case, 72%.
This offer amounts to less than one-quarter of the cost to replace this with a new roof, including the labor and materials needed to strip and re-roof.
The sad part is, I’ve been a loyal customer to this brand and consider them to be a quality product. Unfortunatly, they offer a warranty that the end consumer does not realize covers little.
A customer that has a roof professionaly and correctly installed, with an advertised 25 year shingle, is going to expect not to be charged when the roof fails through no fault of thier own.
My customer has now contacted an attorney and has been advised to include both myself and the lumber yard that sold the shingles and the manufacturer in a suit over the roof.
No idea how this is going to come out, but you can be sure there is going to be someone unhappy.
Replies
*
I'm dealing with my first shingle failure in 25+ years of construction. The roof in question is about 7 years old and the shingles are curling.
The problem is cosmetic at this time-the roofing is still pliable and shedding water. Ventalation has not been the issue here, as it was addressed
at the time it was reroofed.
The problem is the shingle producer's warrenty is pro-rated and is now only only offering a percentage of the original cost of the shingles, in this case, 72%.
This offer amounts to less than one-quarter of the cost to replace this with a new roof, including the labor and materials needed to strip and re-roof.
The sad part is, I've been a loyal customer to this brand and consider them to be a quality product. Unfortunatly, they offer a warranty that the end consumer does not realize covers little.
A customer that has a roof professionaly and correctly installed, with an advertised 25 year shingle, is going to expect not to be charged when the roof fails through no fault of thier own.
My customer has now contacted an attorney and has been advised to include both myself and the lumber yard that sold the shingles and the manufacturer in a suit over the roof.
No idea how this is going to come out, but you can be sure there is going to be someone unhappy.
*
The attorney's advice to name you all sounds correct (sorry!) because you only get to sue once and if someone is left out they get away forever. However, it'd be much more responsible to develop a theory as to WHY the roof failed rather than going to court, throwing mud at the defendants, and seeing where it sticks... I imagine the shingle people have the most legal resources. On the other hand, they'll probably be the first to blink because of reputation concerns.
Now, what you're saying is that labor is NOT covered, which I understood to be the big flaw in the warranty, greater than the defensible decision to reduce the shingle coverage pro-rata (after all, the customer did get 7 years of protection). JRS said labor was covered in jobs he'd done, but maybe this is only for high-end shingles? Anyway, 7 years out of 25 is pathetic -- 24 out of 25, you'd probably not even file a claim. I'd want the mfgr to pay for everything.
Good luck with your troubles.
*TLE-I don't think it is necessary to pull any punches on who the manufacturer is. Let us know that, and also could you be specific about what kind of money is involved? Cost of the original roof(l&m), cost of the new roof(l&m), and the actual settlement they have offered. Unless you made some representation to the customer that the roof was covered beyond the actual warranty terms, I see no reason for you to worry that you could be found at fault. Perhaps andrewd could offer some insight on this aspect(don't mean to put you on the spot andrew!) As this thread develops, I do have some warranty stories to share, but lets focus on your case right now.JohnP.S. I didn't see andrew's post til after I posted (apparently my refresh command didn't refresh!) TLE-please let us know the specifics on your case.
*The mfgr will automatically allege that improper installation cause the failure. That's one of the reasons for naming the installer.TLE may not want to discuss mfgr and settlement offers because he might blow his chance at a settlement -- these things usually require a confidentiality agreement. Plus he might say something that could be used against him, even if he is mistaken. This is why you're not supposed to apologize when you're in an auto accident -- it suggests you know something incriminating you haven't told anyone when you realized you were in trouble, when actually you just felt bad for the victim. Then there's libel...I know, it's total paranoia. I'd like to hear the details too.I guess my question is whether he's talked to a lawyer yet. If the homeowner has, things aren't going well. I'm not pretending to offer legal advice here, just illustrating how stupid these things can get.
*Andrew-my experiances have shown me that when a settlement has been offered(in this case 72% of materials cost) the mfgr.(there has got to be a joke in that abbreviation somewhere)has already aknowleged that the problem does not lie with the installer. The mfgr doesn't want to alienate the contractor or the supplier. So I don't think they will play a "blame game". I still think we could be given details of the dollar amounts without compramizing his case. I have never heard of a confidentiality agreement on a simple warranty settlement(we're not talking mega-bucks here.)John
*Are those fiberglass shingles that are failing?
*I guess it's time to go back to organics!!! Geoff
*John - You said "Unless you made some representation to the customer that the roof was covered beyond the actual warranty terms, I see no reason for you to worry that you could be found at fault."I think you're morally correct, but I doubt that things will turn out that way. Several of the companies I've worked for have been sued over stupid stuff that wasn't the company's fault. What typically seems to happen is that the insurance company offers a few thousand bucks to make the claim go away. Then they raise insurance rates on the insured company because they've had a loss. And there's nothing the company can do about it, unless they want to hire their own lawyers and fight the suit themselves.
*I thought about this confidentiality thing, and I feel it has no merit. If the customer sues, the parties involved are public knowlege. I don't care to make comments a situation that may only be hypothetical. Correct me if I'm wrong Fred, I think you had in mind a discussion on specifics, and not just a big carping session on warranties in generalRon- What you're describing sounds more like a high dollar personal injury situation. The shingle mfgr. is not going to turn to their insurance company to help settle a warranty claim.Again, if we can't discuss specifics(including mfgrs.), I think the discussion is of little use. Specifics also help give a ring of truth to a person's posting.John
*Parties involved are public, but details aren't. I'm wondering what the dollar value is that the owner is talking to an atty. Litigation is so bloody expensive -- no, not because of some lawyer conspiracy -- that it is a rational business to decision to settle to make a worthless suit go away. Kind of like writing off a bad debt.Like I mentioned above, I was just relating lawyer paranoia. Like, if I were the guy's lawyer, I'd say wait to talk to your buddies until this is over. "An abundance of caution" plus malpractice insurance worries. You can't win! Heck, I bet the risk of him saying everything on his mind is zero, I was just offering one of the digressions Breaktime is so famous (infamous?) for.There ARE a lot of misinstalled roofs out there, too. Reports of 4-layer roofs, shortnailing, and botched flashing abound here.
*
The roof involved was 30 square of asphalt shingles applied over one layer of existing roofing.
They are offering $647.
Their warrenty covers labor and material during the first year only. After that, pro-rated for materials only.
To properly repair this roof, both layers will have to be stripped (and cleaned up and hauled away) on top of the new roof that will be applied.
To add to the problem - the owner of the lumberyard is a good freind of the client and not only recomended myself for the installation, but suggested he upgrade from the 20 year that they stocked to a 25 year for better life.
My advise, personaly hand the prospective client a copy of the warrenty and stress the downside of the warrenty before signing. If you lose the job, so be it.
*
Giving a copy of the warranty with any bid package should be the rule. When bidding a roofing or siding job I normally do this. When bidding an addition or new home, normally I don't.
I probably should, but the paper work for all the aspects of a more complex job gets to be overwhelming, and I usually feel lucky just getting those bids completed in a timely manner.
As for the client, they can't be that much of a friend if this has degraded to a lawsuit against their "friend" the lumberyard man. They certainly don't have to include them in the lawsuit. I still wish I new which manufacturer.
John
*John, I was looking at it more from the perspective of the contractor. If he gets sued, (Which is the case here, if I understood right) he will almost certainly turn it over to his insurance company. That's mainly where I was expecting the "payoff" thing to happen. But I also wouldn't be surprised if the shingle manufacturer caved in, thinking it would take mnore to fight the thing in court than to pay up on the shingles.
*This subject has my interest as my roof is being done this week, the asphalt shingles are two layers over two layers of shakes and the last layer is roughly 40 years old and still holding up, but ugly. On the barn they are at least 25 years old but on a neighbors garage, no more than 15 years old, the shingles are a shambles and I am suspecting that they are fiberglass.
*So we're looking at a reroof costing $2500+, and an original shingle cost of around $900. If the warranty said shingles only, I'm not sure how one could fault the manufacturer other than for making cr*ppy shingles. They said the shingles would last 25 years, they only lasted 7 or 32% of that. So with 68% of the 25 years to go, they'll give you 72% or about 18 shingle-years under the warranty. 18 + 7 = 25But the labor is a bummer. I remember some GC's talking about "who does the labor" when a waranteed fixture like a toilet cr*ps out (ha-ha) -- usually the contractor who bought/installed the fixture, or if the homeowner bought it then the homeowner. I can understand the homeowner being mad -- TLE the installer ALSO thinks he shouldn't have to pay anything. But the homeowner saved money by not buying an upscale brand that DOES cover labor. I ALWAYS ask about labor, with the mass-produced stuff now labor is usually the important part. (OK, I haven't actually read the warranty on the new central AC we just got installed, but I'm going to go do it right away now.) If he HAD bought $100/square shingles the labor would be kind of a small part of the warranty payoff, so why not throw it in? Failure to read the warranty doesn't cut the economizing buyer any slack.Good luck TLE ... maybe you can offer a break on the labor to make this one go away and explain/staple a copy of the mfgr warranty to every contract from now on. Maybe the homeowner will come to his senses (his atty should have already). You should only have to do it right once.
*A couple of the messages above mentioned shingles failing that had been installed over existing shingles. Even though this may be allowed by code and be a common practice, homeowners should be aware of warranty limitations that address this. CertainTeed, in their warranty, has the following exclusion: "It [the warranty]does not provide protection against damage caused by situations and events beyond normal exposure conditions, such as, but not limited to..distortion, cracking or other failure, or movement of the base material over which the shingles are applied, or of the roof deck, or of the walls or foundation of the building itself." This exclusion should give pause to those considering roofing over deteriorated shingles. If the old shingles are no longer serviceable, how could one argue that they were still a satisfactory underlayment for new shingles? I think the prudent course is to always do a total rip-off when re-roofing. This also exposes the decking and allows any problems to be identified.
*The failures I have seen vary. In this part of the country (Me.) it has been fiberglass shingles that have failed ...... most builders have switched back to organics. Working in the Gulf Coast area, it was a top of the line 30 year organic shingle that was failing, often starting to disintegrate in less than five years. Two different manufacturers.
*Here's a question - If shingle manufactures will warranty a roof laid over previous layers, then why are they so scared of non-vented roofs. I always thought shingle-over re-roofs were not covered, I guess I was mistaken with that. Seemes to me the underlayers of shingle will hold a hell of a lot of heat before transmitting it through the plywood, then having it completely removed by simple venting.This one claim has officially been beat to death. JRS, please bring forth one of your cases.-Rob
*Steve-In our line of work we prefer the term tear-offs to the term rip-offs. I'm sure you understand.;}John
*The shingles I normally deal with are Owens-Corning,GAF,Certainteed,and Elk. Here are some of the warranty specifics:O.C.,GAF,and Elk- 1 year full coverage, labor and material; after that, labor and material pro-rated on a monthly basis. Does not include tear-off or disposal fees. Non-transferable. The replacement cost is determined soley by the manufacturer. Customer is required to notify mfr. directly(notice to contractor or supplier is not enough).Certainteed is almost the same with the following exceptions: 20 yr. have 3 yr. non-pro rated; 25&30 yr. have 5 yr. non-pro rated; Grand manor has 10 yr. non-pro rated. Certainteed is transferable once for a period of limited to 2 yrs.I still wish I knew whose warranty pays only for the shingles!When you read these warranties they sound very one sided, and they are! During the 90's all mfrs. got much tougher on their terms. Tear-off and dumping costs were dropped altogether. Because replacement costs are determined by the mfr.(and only defined as reasonable) there is room for negotiation. If you have a claim, be prompt in filing, be businesslike and courteous, and you'll have your best chance at an equitable settlement. Unless the claim is in the non-pro rated period mfrs. usually go for a monetary settlement.Warranty claims for any product are a pain in the neck, but failure rates seem to me to be very low. I now discourage overlays for someone looking at the warranty for long term protection, but in many cases, they still make sense.(The warranty is not transferable if the customer is going to sell soon). I could keep going on, but I've probably put most of you to sleep by now.John
*
JohnS brings up a legitimate point about roof warranties and inquiring minds, SteveZ for example, want to know how your lack of venting has affected them. I'd like to know about any and all roof failure claims. So if you have ever applied for compensation for a roof failure with or without ventilation, testify here. Specifics such as the age of roofing, manufacturer, and the nature of the failure would be interesting.
*View Image