Mike Silvers, CPRC, Owner, Silver Systems Inc. and FRSA Director of Technical Services
It was often called the “Special Session on Property Insurance” but, as it unfolded, it was plain to see that it also dealt with roofing as a primary focus. In last month’s column, I touched on several issues that we thought would be addressed during the session. As it turned out, the effects of the legislation that was enacted could have impacts that go well beyond what we expected. As is typical with the work of our lawmakers, there are things that we like and a few things we think could have been done better.
Insurer Mandated Premature Roof Replacement
One issue that FRSA has been addressing was the insurance industry’s recent practice of canceling or non-renewing property insurance policies based solely on the age of the roof covering. This was taking place for roofs that were only 10 years old and, in some cases, newer than that. The practice forced property owners to prematurely replace roofs that had many more years of serviceable life remaining. We were, however, surprised when the legislation addressed
this in ways we certainly didn’t expect. Starting with homeowner’s policies issued or renewed after July 1, 2022:
■ Insurers cannot refuse to issue or renew a homeowner’s policy on a residential roof that is less than 15 years old solely because of the age of the roof.
■ For roofs that are at least 15 years old, a homeowner is allowed to have an authorized person perform an inspection and if the inspection states that the roof has 5 years of useful life remaining, then the insured may not refuse to issue or renew a homeowner’s policy solely because of the age of the roof.
An authorized person means an inspector who is approved by the insurer and who is:
■ A home inspector licensed under § 468.8324
■ A building code inspector certified under § 468.607
■ A general, building or residential contractor licensed under § 489.111
■ A professional engineer licensed under § 471.015
■ A professional architect licensed under § 481.213
■ Any other individual or entity recognized by the insurer as possessing the necessary qualifications to properly complete a general inspection of a residential structure insured with a homeowner’s insurance policy.
If the authorized person description looks familiar, it should. It’s the same language used in the Hurricane Mitigation sections of the Florida Building Code (FBC) Existing Building sub-code and on hurricane mitigation forms. The omission of a roofing contractor licensed
under § 489.105 is, it would seem, a clear oversight. As opposed to the mitigation requirements, these new inspections are not of the structural components but of the roof coverings. I submit that most of the professionals listed as an authorized person in the new
legislation, usually depend on a roofing contractor or consultant to assess the remaining useful life of a roof covering. Arguably, those should be the only professionals allowed to conduct these inspections. The legislation is also unclear about how often an inspection
needs to be done. The implication is that it should be good for five years, however it could be interpreted that one would need to be conducted at each policy issuance or renewal. The authorized person designation will more than likely require a legislative fix. The
interpretation of the inspection frequency may be able to be addressed through the Office of Insurance Regulation rule making.
Another issue that the legislation attempted to address was the use or abuse of the so-called 25% Rule. As I said in last month’s column – philosophically, I would prefer to have the Building Commission and the Technical Advisory Committees (TAC) review and implement code changes. After the legislatures made changes to FRSA’s proposed FBC 8th Edition 2023 code modification and included the new language in the legislation: my philosophic preferences were reinforced.
FRSA’s proposed modification said (new language underscored):
EB706.1.1 Not more than 25 percent of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced or recovered in any 12-month period unless the entire existing roofing system or roof section is replaced to conform to requirements of this code.
Exception: Replacement of the entire existing roof or roof section is not required if the existing roof covering was permitted and installed in compliance with this code or the two previous versions of the Florida Building Code.
The provisions of bill SB-4D, which was signed by the Governor, are now part of the state’s statutes. It contains (in part) the following language:
Section 1. Subsection (5) is added to section 553.844, Florida Statutes, to read: 553.844 Windstorm loss mitigation; requirements for roofs and opening protection.
(5) Notwithstanding any provision in the Florida Building Code to the contrary, if an existing roofing system or roof section was built, repaired or replaced in compliance with the requirements of the 2007 Florida Building Code, or any subsequent editions of the Florida Building Code, and 25 percent or more of such roofing system or roof section is being repaired, replaced, or recovered, only the repaired, replaced, or recovered portion is required to be constructed in accordance with the Florida Building Code in effect,
as applicable. The Florida Building Commission shall adopt this exception by rule and incorporate it in the Florida Building Code. Notwithstanding § 553.73(4), a local government may not adopt by ordinance an administrative or technical amendment to this exception.
Legislative language is usually confusing for most of us and for that reason it is typically not used in the code. The inclusion of “notwithstanding” twice in one short paragraph is proof of that. As written, it would add more confusion to one of the most confusing
portions of the code.
During a Florida Building Commission meeting held on June 7, the Commission staff presented proposals to the Commission asking them to insert the legislative language as written into the code. Not only to the 25% Rule changes but also to all of the provisions dealing with the legislature’s reaction to the Surfside collapse. These provisions were added to the 25% Rule bill as an amendment. In our opinion, only clear language that complies with the intent of the legislation should be incorporated into the code. FRSA’s Legislative Counsel Chris Dawson and I explained our concerns about staff’s recommendations to the Commissioners. Commissioner Brian Swope, CPRC then made a motion to table the language and have the appropriate TAC review the bill and make recommendations to the Commission for proposed language to be included in the code. The motion passed 10-1 favoring our position. The TAC took this up at their meetings in late June.
FRSA suggested that the TAC adopt the following language:
1511.1.1. Not more than 25 percent of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced or recovered in any 12-month period unless the roof covering on entire existing roof or roof section is reroofed to conform to the requirements of this code.
Exception: Reroofing of the entire existing roof or roof section is not required if the existing roof covering was permitted and installed in compliance with the 2007 Florida Building Code, or any subsequent editions of the Florida Building Code, only the reroofed portion is required to be constructed in accordance with this code. Nothing in Florida § 553.73(4) shall allow a local government to adopt by ordinance, an administrative or technical amendment to this exception.
This is not the approach we would have preferred. FRSA’s original proposed modification would not have, required full replacement of roofs between six and nine years old or newer depending on where we are in “this codes” three-year code cycle. This approach not only prevented the need for premature replacement of relatively new roof coverings, it also took into account the age of the remaining roof and its suitability for a proper tie in/off. The age of exempted roof coverings would then remain consistent into the future. The legislation as passed will eventually lead us to the point where no roofs will be covered by the 25% Rule and we will be expected to make proper tie ins to roofs that will eventually be many decades old.
FRSA and the roofing industry will need to lobby to have new legislation introduced to fix the issue. Until then, the statutes will not change. What may change is the final language incorporated into the code that must follow the intent of the legislation.
All of the bill’s provisions discussed above as well as the Surfside provisions, took affect when they were signed by the Governor. They apply now. I will discuss the Surfside provisions in more detail and update the 25% Rule information after the code language is determined
Overall, the Special Session addressed many concerns and will go a long way towards dealing with several very important and difficult issues. As usual, there is much work to be done.
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 40 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.
Previous Article
Next Article