All Forum Posts by: Victor S.

This is all sorts of wrong.

My initial issue with Matthew's advice is that the property has only been owned for a month so unless the "wind damage" occurred during that time there is no covered loss here.  The likelihood of getting Progressive to cover a claim ON THE ROOF when they are issuing a flat cancel due to inspection ON THE ROOF is very low.

For the most part, insurance companies don't inspect homes before coverage is bound.  They're inspecting nearly every home now post-bind because of the difficult insurance environment and ability to get off a risk (flat cancel) within a certain period of time (depending on the state) just after the policy was issued.  Meaning, they can cancel within first 45 or 60 days without having to wait until the policy anniversary.

Separate from that, there isn't any special provision for storm damage not negatively impacting your insurance.  If a storm is deemed a catastrophe that is a different story.  Unless there was a severe storm with widespread damage in the past month of home ownership...not gonna fly.  

All that being said, there are a lot of roofing companies that do exactly what @Matthew Paul was suggesting.  Sometimes it's totally legit. Other times they go from house to house in a neighborhood and solicit homeowners to get projects replacing roofs.  Needless to say this practice eventually gets fought by insurance, prices go up, policies get less comprehensive, etc.  It's happening now all over the place.  It's a vicious cycle.

Whatever your opinions are on this practice the tricky part about this situation is that this is a new purchase and new insurance policy.  You're looking at a very small window for when damage could have occurred and therefore an actual covered loss.

When purchasing an insurance policy you will be asked when the roof was last replaced.  It's a significant rating factor.  You'll also have to disclose that your previous policy was cancelled and why.  If you replace the roof and can prove that you've done so you should be able to get a new policy with a new carrier.  Some will have issues with the work not being done by a licensed contractor.  There's no hard and fast rule and they may or may not ask specifically.

 Wouldn't recommend that, loss runs will just run your rates up and you will be paying more and instantly show red flags to your new carrier 

If I was given the two choices, I would continue on and work to recoup sunk costs; however, my motivations are my own. Above all, this is a hard lesson to learn, and I am sorry you are going through this. Really look at your long-term goals and how you could turn this around. Good luck & happy investing!

@Summer Dechanukul

I hate that this happened to you and I hope that you will report the realtor to their Broker at a minimum.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of everyone - realtors, contractors, lenders, insurance brokers - who are not qualified to be advising others on real estate.  You haven't made a 'fatal mistake,' just a lesson learned...there will be more.  You can still turn this around and move forward to something far better.  I  recommend making the repairs; prepare a Scope of Work. If you don't have one (the form), the are available for free download online.  Get real specific on what needs to happen - step by step - and get bids for each job. Have each contractor sign off on the Scope of Work for their specialty and manage to it.  This will save you time and money while expediating the repairs.

Once you decide to settle into the current reality, dig in and move forward, all this will be far behind you.  You got this...

This thread just needs some optimistic positive thinking….where is Luke Carl at to fire everyone back up? 

@Chris Park Getting a 100 degree space cooled again eats up more energy then just keeping it at 80 and having him bump it up when he comes back. If you can convince him to do it. If you are in a really hot location a setback on the thermostat is what you probably need, not routinely shutting it down.  I would also suggest the cap above which the tenant pays for a future lease.