Mike Silvers, CPRC, Silvers Systems Inc. and FRSA Director of Technical Services
A short time ago I received a somewhat cryptic message from FRSA’s lobbyist Chris Dawson that said, “Breaking News. Mike – your 25% rule mod may be getting fast-tracked.” A little background will help you understand why I described the message as cryptic.
The mod Chris was referring to was one of FRSA’s 2023 Florida Building Code (FBC) 8th Edition Modification R9883 (see inset), which was one of 29 modifications (mods) that we submitted during this code revision cycle. Chris not only moves our positions forward with legislators, but he also regularly discusses them with lobbyists for other stakeholders such as the Florida Home Builders Association (FHBA). So, I concluded that he must have gotten word that someone would be supporting our modification. But still the fast-tracked part left me somewhat confused (an ever-increasing condition as the years go by). It was late afternoon and I decided my curiosity could wait until the next day.
Later that evening, I received an email from Will Rabb, a journalist for the Insurance Journal a widely-read publication covering the insurance industry. Will had recently interviewed me for a couple of articles he wrote concerning the “Free Roof Syndrome” and the effects it was having on Florida’s property insurance markets. Will’s email said, “The Governor has called the special session and it specifically says changes to the building code will be on the agenda. Any thoughts? Seems odd, since the Building Commission normally reviews code changes….”
Attached to Will’s email was a very official looking document with a very large and bold: PROCLAMATION across the top and at the bottom, with Governor DeSantis’s very large and bold signature. Towards the bottom of what turned out to be the order for a May 23, Special Session of the Legislature to address the state’s property insurance issues, was language that stated:
Section 2. The Legislature of the State of Florida is convened in Special Session for the sole and exclusive purpose of considering legislation related to (a) property insurance, (b) reinsurance, (c) changes to the Florida Building Code to improve the affordability of property insurance, (d) the Office of Insurance Regulation, (e) civil remedies, and (f) appropriations.
Does that say, “Changes to the Florida building code to improve the affordability of property insurance”? At this point the meaning of Chris’s message became clearer. I responded to Will stating that it was unusual but not unprecedented for the legislature to get involved in the building code.
I was still somewhat confused. Chris and I hadn’t discussed moving this suggested code change into the legislative arena, so how did we get to the point that one of our code proposals was going to be reviewed in a special session? Philosophically, I would prefer to have the Building Commission and the Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) review and implement our code changes but it was obvious that this
train had already left the station. After all, like Chris said, it was getting fast-tracked! I still wondered to whom and just how this baton had been handed off.
By the time you are reading this, the special session will have ended. The decisions that were made are important and hopefully will have a positive effect on the crisis it is trying to address. Regardless of how it turns out, it is still interesting to review how we got here.
FRSA has been a consistent leader in attempts to make Florida’s roofs more sustainable as well as more resilient (remember when those were important?). Since before the creation of the FBC, we have worked to improve roof systems we install. But recently the “Free Roof
Syndrome” and the demand of insurers to replace roofs that have many years of serviceable life left has derailed these still very important goals of sustainability and resilience.
As important as these goals are and the fact that the roofing industry had stepped up many times to accomplish them, it has not been fully understood or, for that matter, appreciated. Too many reports have portrayed roofing contractors as the problem: that we were just a bunch of greedy fraudsters preying upon vulnerable homeowners and insurers. FRSA took strong exception to the smearing of our industry and of our members. Our leadership made it clear that they wanted to be part of the solution and thereby clear this cloud that was casting a shadow on all of us.
Several code modifications, such as allowing the use of salvaged tile for repairs, were proposed and adopted during the 2020 FBC renewal process. Once the insurance industry and others became aware of these changes, they took notice. A conversation was started.
We had the chance to explain that counter-intuitively, roofers do not always want to just sell more roofs and that we had a desire to install new roofs for the right reasons. Roofs that stand up to the elements and last for decades. Roofs that reflect the quality and craftsmanship of our trade.
People wanted to ask questions about our positions and we responded. Our positions were solid and hard to disregard or, even worse, dismiss. Word got out through articles by us and by others and they got noticed. Regulators contacted us to drill down on our positions. Even television stations reached out to get our take. The perception began to change, maybe we were not enemies after all but important allies attempting to get our industry and industry members’ reputations back on track. We wanted to replace roofs when they were worn out or the owner wanted a new roof to change their homes appearance. We wanted to retain insurance coverage for real damage and not
highly dubious hail and wind claims because some app on our phone says these weather events took place, even when there are no other signs of damage to other building components, cars or landscaping.
So, as it turns out, it is insurers that have reached the breaking point along with others who want to stop the waste being created by premature roof replacement that moved our position forward. Hopefully, it will help. Despite our best efforts to improve the situation,
there is only so much we can do. We can’t roof our way out of this. The idea that getting rid of these older roofs as a way to eliminate the free roof abuse is absurd. If all the roofs were 10 years of age or newer, do you really think this potential fraud and those perpetrating
it would disappear?
The best possible outcome will be to give insurers a reasonable amount of time to inspect perceived damage before anything other than emergency measures to prevent further damage are performed. In return, the insurance industry needs to take a similar approach when issuing demands for premature roof replacement by allowing expert opinions based on inspections to be considered before cancellation
or mandatory replacement. This will allow building owners to receive the full value of high-quality roof systems while controlling the cost of property insurance claims and premiums for all of us.
Mike Silvers, CPRC is owner of Silvers Systems Inc. and is consulting with FRSA as Director of Technical Services. Mike is an FRSA Past President, Life Member and Campanella Award recipient and brings over 45 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.
Previous Article