Mike Silvers, CPRC, Silvers Systems Inc. and FRSA Director of Technical Services
It was great to see so many industry professionals at our 100th Anniversary Convention and Expo. For those of us who have been involved for many years, it was a chance to catch up with old friends. For all of us it was a chance to make new acquaintances and build future friendships. I think it was an absolute success. Having it in Daytona Beach, in the same city where our founding meeting was held 100 years earlier, made the effort to hold it in an unusual venue worthwhile. It will stand out as a unique event for our Association as we move forward into our second century. And move forward we will. Our new President, Matt Criswell, has laid out several priorities for us. During his very thoughtful acceptance speech he stated:
“One of those initiatives over the past year is insurance reform within our industry. I don’t mean general liability or workers’ comp or auto. It’s about the elephant in the room – the issue of the roofing companies that help bastardize the claims process. Whether you like it or hate it, it has been a massive detriment to our industry these past few years. We’ve got to come up with a solution that benefits everyone. If you are one of these companies that participate in an insurance-only game, I’m not asking you to close up shop, rather expand what you have built and do it the right way.”
Those of you who are involved in our leadership or who regularly read this column know, as Matt stated, we have been dealing with this issue for the past few years. This abuse has prompted many thoughtful improvements in statutes and the building code. It has also caused many not so helpful knee jerk reactions. All of these are attempting to rein in the runaway increases in claims, lawsuits and the resulting property insurance premiums. There isn’t space in this article to dissect the many root causes for the problem. However, we will review some attempts to deal with this problem when the legislation was passed during the recent special session and subsequently signed by the Governor. Now the so-called sausage making starts as state agencies, commissions, workgroups and those being regulated go to work.
On August 4, the Florida Building Commission adopted for immediate inclusion in the current 2020 7th Edition of the Florida Building Code (FBC), the commission’s staff recommendations for compliance with the legislative intent of the recently passed SB-4D. There are two subjects addressed in the legislation and now state statutes. The following link will download the supplement to the code changes prompted by the bill: www.floridaroof.com/FBC-sb-4d.
Although the first change does not have an immediate impact on our industry, it will have the potential to do so as we progress. It adds a new section to the Building Volume, Chapter 1 Scope and Administration, 110.9 Mandatory structural inspections for condominium and cooperative buildings. This was adopted as a response to the Surfside building collapse. A new workgroup was created to make recommendations to the Commission. It is called the Existing Building Inspection Workgroup (EBIW). Commissioner (and FRSA Past President) Brian Swope, CPRC, Tampa Roofing Company, who is Chairman of the Commission’s Roofing Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) and the Commission’s roofing representative, was appointed to the new workgroup. As part of the bill’s first assignment, the workgroup will be reviewing the milestone inspection requirements of the legislation and will then make recommendations to the Commission so that they can then make recommendations to ensure inspections are sufficient to determine the structural integrity of a building and provide a written report to the Governor, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2022. As part of the second assignment, the Florida Building Commission shall consult with the State Fire Marshal to provide recommendations to the Legislature for the adoption of comprehensive structural and life safety standards for maintaining and inspecting all types of buildings and structures in the state that are three stories or more in height. The Commission shall provide a written report of its recommendations to the Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 31, 2023. As it stands now, mandatory inspections will only apply to condominium and cooperative buildings. That could
possibly change but it is fairly unlikely. We will be closely monitoring the progress of the workgroup.
The second change creates a very impactful exception to the so-called 25% rule. This change was effective in state statutes on May 26. The following final code language was adopted by the Commission at the same August 4 meeting.
7th Edition (2020) Florida Building Code – Building, CHAPTER 15 ROOF ASSEMBLIES AND ROOFTOP STRUCTURES, Revise section 1511.1.1, (and 1521.4),
7th Edition (2020) Florida Building Code – Residential, CHAPTER 9 ROOF ASSEMBLIES, Revise section R908.1.1,
7th Edition (2020) Florida Building Code – Existing Building, CHAPTER 7 ALTERATIONS—LEVEL 1, Revise section 706.1.1
All were changed to now read as follows (new language underscored):
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: 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. Pursuant to s. 553.844(5), Florida Statutes, a local government may not adopt by ordinance an administrative or technical amendment to this exception.
To reiterate, this 25% rule change was prompted due to the perceived insurance claim abuse by those who have created what I call the “free roof syndrome.” It basically eliminates the 25% rule unless the roof was permitted prior to March 1, 2009, which was the implementation date for the 2007 FBC. If in doubt about which code the previous work was permitted under, confirm this with the building department where your project is located as to when they adopted the 2007 FBC and which code applied.
Conscientious roofing contractors often find themselves defending our occupation when much of the property insurance problem originates from the insurance industry itself. It often begins with easy to manipulate or – even worse – fraudulent independent claims adjusters who seldom understand roofing damage and often approve or accept ridiculously overpriced roof claims. Their inability or unwillingness to properly analyze roof damage and roof condition combined with insurer’s legal departments reluctance to fight questionable claims has created an atmosphere that fosters the fraud they then blame for today’s soaring rates. Some unscrupulous attorneys team up with similarly minded roofing contractors to take advantage of the easy money that exists due to this far too costly approach to claims handling. At some point, the underwriters noticed they were paying out too much in roofing claims and decided the best solution was to only write coverage on buildings with nearly new roofs. Similarly, too many of these adjusters don’t understand that what separates a good roof from a bad roof is so much more than age alone. Property owners are being forced to replace roofs with years of serviceable life remaining, adding to the cost of procuring coverage.
The second piece of legislation passed during the special session made many changes on the legal side that should help insurers push back against questionable claims. It also included provisions that for 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. It also says that 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 five 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. This seemed like a win for quality-minded roofing contractors and property owners who are interested in buying quality roofs. However, the insurance company underwriters are fit to be tied over these provisions. They are already implementing interpretations that require a roof be newer than 15 years and that the roof system must also include a direct to deck secondary water barrier. This new restriction wasn’t part of the bill. Word is out that the insurers have the elimination of these requirements at the top of their legislative hit list. If you missed them, you can find additional information on these recent changes in the links below to FRSA’s Legislative Counsel Chris Dawson’s (www.floridaroof.com/frm7-22p10) and my (www.floridaroof.com/frm7-22p24) columns, both in the July issue of Florida Roofing magazine.
We have recently received reports that many insurers are now using similar underwriting standards for low slope roofs. So far, these have mainly been for condominium roofs. They are typically well-performing roof systems that may be great candidates for coatings and routine maintenance. In one example, a 20-year-old modified bitumen roof covering with no reported issues was performing very well on a high-rise building. It had enhanced and still code-compliant fastening to an insulating lightweight concrete deck. The owners were required by their insurer to replace the roof system. This despite the fact that with proper maintenance it could provide several additional decades of serviceable life. Not only did the roof covering need to be replaced but the removal process would damage the insulating lightweight concrete fill which would be compromised during removal of the numerous fasteners and also need to be replaced.
FRSA and the industry have joined together and overcame many challenges during the previous century. This one, which President Criswell recognized in his acceptance speech, is among the most imposing. FRSA is addressing this issue on many fronts. The future
reputation of our profession, occupation and craft depends on how well we can tame Matt’s “elephant in the room.”
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