In checking the roof permit that was applied for I found that there was no inspection and the permit expired.
Would you show the permit application date (2004) on the wind mit?
sure but it has never passed insp so does not qualify in my book.
I hope they paid you to do their research for them 
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT][size=2]No roof coverings meet the requirements, no final inspection.
[/size][/FONT][/size][/FONT]
A State Certified Roofing Contractor could certify that it was completed to code approximately when it was permitted. About 90% of the roofs in my market were replaced in 2004/2005 and of those replaced, about 90% have expired permits for a few different reasons.
Using a licensed roofer for your wind mit has advantages.:mrgreen:
Is there a place on the form for a roofing contractor to certify a non permitted roof?
How could it be done honestly with no destructive analysis?
I would fall over if the inspector used the wording it was completed to code approximately and any underwriter worth their salt accepted it.
Unless of course it was some inspection company in bed with the insurance agency.
Mike I was confused from the post above about a roofer certifying it. I have been doing these since 2008 and that is why they put the permit date on the new form Kevin
FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of installation
OR
have a roofing permit application date on or after 3/1/02
OR
the roof is original and built in 2004 or later
We do not mark A or B if a permit was not properly finalized, unless we have the product approval. Sometimes we can have a receipt and Product approval and no permit. Some insurance companies will give credit with a permit that was not properly finalized others will not. You have to decide which side you fall on. If you do mark “meets” and it gets taken away, who is going to look bad? We simply tell clients we will need some sort of proof.
Basically, I do a seperate letter stating whether it was in fact installed when permitted or not. If it was permitted in 2004/2005, you can tell fairly easily if it was installed at that time based on the condition of the material.
The letter includes the type of material, manufacturer, product line, and NOA.
Roof Covering: Select all roof covering types in use. Provide the permit application date OR FBC/MDC Product Approval number
OR Year of Original Installation/Replacement OR indicate that no information was available to verify compliance for each roof covering identified.
All roof coverings listed above meet the FBC with a FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of
installation
OR have a roofing permit application date on or after 3/1/02
OR the roof is original and built in 2004 or later.
The answer, according to the form is yes. The form doesn’t ask you if it was finaled, inspected or anything else.
Unless you are authorized to enforce the building code, I would mark “A”, and inform my client that the insurance company may want more documentation, but the larger problem, is that you have un-permitted work on the propertly and I would suggest you correct that.
I am going to show the “permit applied for date” and attach the permit info to the report and let them decide how they want to handle it.
That is exactly what I would do…and have done. I actually get a copy of the permit, or have the client do it.
Their mistake on the form was not asking whether or not the permit was finaled. It only asks for the application date. I do what Eric does
This is exactly my procedure. We play by the rules established by the OIR. No more, no less. Fill out the form as much as we possible can and let the underwriters decide. If you start making decisions based on whether a final inspection wasn’t issued or if it isn’t to code, you begin to stray from your purpose. Of course it’s a good idea to mention to your client the roof didn’t final, but that is not what the form asks and until it becomes a question on the form with a delineated space to fill in, then I don’t report on it.
Bert
My question is why give it to them when you know it will be taken away. We can always say “the form says…” but everyone here knows they don’t except it without a final. Funny thing is a letter from an engineer and $400 dollar fee to reopen the permit and then a final cures it.
Lee, if you submit with an application date of an expired permit, expect the underwriter to reject the credit if you select A. They do check the permits on their end. You could do a work around by submitting the FL approval document of the roofing product along with an invoice or receipt that ties it to the property if you have that information.
Everyone here does not know that. In fact “you” can’t say without a doubt the underwriter will not accept it. They have accepted it based on FBC or MDC product approval #'s and permit application dates.
Do they all accept it? Probably not. But why would you place yourself in the position to make that decision instead of allowing the underwriter to instead. You’re not trying to pull a fast one over anyone or being slick. You’re filling out the form with as much information as possible and affording your client the opportunity to possibly be granted a discount. By doing it the way you suggest, your client has struck out before even getting to bat.
I’m not suggesting you do not inform the client of the fact there is no final, I’m allowing the underwriter to make the call given all the facts. I believe that’s the least you or anyone one of us can do for the client.
Bert
What are we “giving them” Preston?
We are filling out the form and answering the questions on it. I distinctly remember John S stating more than once, “It isn’t our concern about who gets discounts, just fill out the form and let the insurance company decide”, loosely paraphrasing.
As I said above, when the situation arises, and to be clear, 90% of my wind mits come with the home inspection so I know about a problem like this before I even get to the home, I tell all of my clients that this, as well as any other permit issues should be resolved prior to purchase.
Then again, I do a permit search and wind mit on every home I inspect, which may be different from what others do.
OK so without product approval and a permit that is expired how does it meet code?? It was never inspected. It might but how do you know. You should include the expired permit though. You can do it the other way but that’s why some insurance companies only allow their preferred inspectors and others do reinspections. Not telling you how to run your business but just the reality of it.
Let’s try it this way, start from the bottom up.
A. All roof coverings listed above meet the FBC with a FBC or Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of
installation OR have a roofing permit application date on or after 3/1/02 OR the roof is original and built in 2004 or later.
������ B. All roof coverings have a Miami-Dade Product Approval listing current at time of installation OR (for the HVHZ only) a
roofing permit application after 9/1/1994 and before 3/1/2002 OR the roof is original and built in 1997 or later.
������ C. One or more roof coverings do not meet the requirements of Answer** “A”** or “B”.
������ D. No roof coverings meet the requirements of Answer “A” or “B”.
In order to mark C or D, it doesn’t meet the requirements of A or B. Nowhere on this section does it say anything about having a finalized permit. Now, technically, not being finaled means it isn’t in compliance with the first part of answer A, however, in answer A, it also gives you two other answers to pick from. In this instance, we know that at least the second answer justifies marking answer A. It is right there in black and white.
I understand what you are trying to say Preston, but, that isn’t what the form says and no matter how you and others want to spin “intent”, intent doesn’t supersede actuality…except possibly in the OIR where English is obviously a second, possibly third language.