After some back and forth with some underwriting officials they decided I(and many others) were wrong. 
They are calling tile roofs a primary roofing material, therefore tile roofs with peel and stick can qualify for SWR on the 1802 form.
See below:
I don’t get it. Are you saying that you were previously not allowing credit for SWR on tile roofs with P&S? I have always treated tile and metal roofs the same as shingle roofs for SWR.
The issue with a tile roof is it is not a water covering on a roof. Tiles are installed to protect the underlayment. A tile roof must have an underlayment for water resistance, unlike a shingle or metal roof. This would imply that if a P&S is installed on a tile roof, it is a primary roof covering and not as a secondary means to protect the structure.
This discussion has gone back an forth many times here and within insurance companies. When questioned about it I decided to reach out to some underwriters, after they flipped back and forth this was the decision that they gave me.
Remember the building code definitions and 1802 form definitions can and do vary.
Yes, all true and I think most understand the difference. But, primary or not, a self-adhered underlayment applied directly to the decking is all the form asks for. The roofing membrane under tile is still an underlayment isn’t it? That’s the way I always looked at it anyway.
Just because you are I look at it one way, does not mean others look at it the same way. This is the reason for the post. The updated class will include this new info. You should understand that this was also debated inside some insurance companies also with different viewpoints. To me even though the form’s wordiing may imply one way they came to a correct conclusion for the consumer.
After much research I am led to believe that the hot applied membrane is not approved as a SWM.
Yes, ice and water shield would do it but the mfg does not stand behind the application of hot material over ice and water shield. Even in 6" strips.
The only way to achieve it was to add a foam adhesive under the sheathing at all joints.
I am only addressing clay and concrete tiles.
Most underlayment systems under tile these days are self-adhered membranes designed for tile roofs, at least around here. However, in the HVHZ, the P&S is required to be installed over a mechanically fastened base sheet, which does not comply to the 1802. Some areas around me are taking this approach due to problems with repairs and reroofing in the future if you have P&S directly on the sheathing (it won’t come off). Mopped-in roll roofing is old school, but needs to be installed over a mechanically fastened base sheet (seam tape can be installed under this base sheet, even in the HVHZ). I can see OIR possibly taking this section out of the 1802 due to so much confusion between insurance companies and FBC…not much credit for it anyway.
It isn’t confusion, it is direct contradiction. Every city in Broward county, installs a base sheet manually, then the hot-mopped top sheet. In other instances, where peel and stick is used,the first sheet still has to be mechanically fastened, then the peel and stick is applied.
My question is, if you get credit for glass block not being covered in the non-hurricane zone, because it wasn’t required by code, then how can you deny a credit for SWR when the installation meets the code? :shock:
I am hoping for a reply on the Swr in the hvhz. I will update the class for the Orlando.
Good point, but I guess I do understand why the insurance industry would want to restrict the definition of SWR. Outside the HVHZ, a code approved “SWR” is only one layer of 15# felt nailed at 36" OC on a 4/12 slope (just read the code). That is hardly going to stay on the roof if the shingles blow off.
"However, in the HVHZ, the P&S is required to be installed over a mechanically fastened base sheet."
I was informed the P&S was installed under the base sheet. Interesting as the adhesion/tension on the P&S seems like it would be greatly reduced OVER the nail fastened sheet.
It is specifically required to be installed OVER the anchor sheet only in the HVHZ.
R4402.7.3
What authority do underwriters have?
Would this not be a question for the OIR?
As the “operator” of a business, the right to give discounts.
The OIR can not address it as they do not have anyone on staff with the technical knowledge. They would have to hire a consultant, they open up meetings, and listen to everyone complain that they do not agree. Then there would be more meetings. Then everyone would complain some more.
This is not meant at all to start a fight or to bash you but I feel it is not up to you or the underwriters to make that decision. Heck how many underwriters agreed and what companies do they work for? I am really interested in those numbers and how they can decide for the whole state.
Do you write you classes based on what “some” underwriters say they will accept. That does not seem at all proper to me.
The Office of Insurance Regulation are the only ones that have the right to determine how the form is filled out and the questions that are on it.
The underwriters HAVE to give the discounts based on what the OIR determines.
I happen to now feel that peel and stick directly on the roof deck joints should meet the standards but NOTHING on top of manually fastened tar paper should. In the past I did not even agree on that but have changed my opinion as I feel it would for a short time prevent water intrusion at least until the roof could be repaired.
**A declaratory statement is used to obtain an interpretation of a statute, rule, or order from a state agency as applicable to a petitioner’s “particular set of circumstances.”2 It is a means of resolving a controversy or addressing questions or doubts about the applicability of statutes, rules, or agency orders.
**
I believe the link below sums it up the important part is listed above. I do not believe the underwriters or writer has the right to do as you stated.
That is a great legal definition, what would you like ME to call it?
The point is that I am changing the class that I wrote to reflect these NEW opinions. Like to not, that is what I am doing.
BTW, this is not the first time, I or anyone else has changed an opinion on a answer or interpretation. Call me tomorrow and I will give you some professional details that explains WHY MY opinion changed.
My cell is 321-626-8153
Like i said I am not looking for a fight I KNOW you are doing what you feel is right and correct I just feel that you SHOULD not have the right. Not because you are unqualified but because the OIR should be regulating the insurance companies and deciding what is correct for their forms.
So they should be regulated but you should not? Got it.
I guess you are looking for a fight as usual…
I did not say the insurance companies should be regulated at all. I fee that they should be able to run their businesses however they like. BUT just like the waste of time Home Inspector licensing I did not or do not make those decisions. They and Home Inspectors ARE regulated and the branch of government that tells Insurance Companies what they must or must not do is the Office of Insurance Regulation. O.I.R.
Not the underwriters or you. You are using terms and words to make other inspectors think that what you and some underwriters came up with mean anything. IT DOES NOT. It is only yours and their OPINIONS.
Just curious none of the rest of you Florida inspectors have an opinion on this? Feel free to disagree with me if you like. I am TRYING to not get personal and want to know the legality of all of this. I am not attacking John who is one of the most knowledgeable wind mitigation inspectors out there. I just do not believe what he has come up with should be expressed than anything more than an opinion and calling it a Declaratory Statement sure makes it SOUND official.