| Author |
Message |
Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: rjray
Post Number: 122
Registered: 04-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 04, 2013 - 04:26 pm: |    |
Folks, below is a summary of what has transpired with a hail damage inspection by a roofing membrane manufacturer. I name names.
On or about June 25, 2013, Scott Goldsmith with Aspen Contracting Inc. from Less Summit, Missouri, contacted a building owner, explaining that Aspen had been hired to inspect warranted roofs by Derbigum that may have been subjected to a recent hail storm. Mr. Goldsmith explained to the building owner, that even though the Derbigum warranty did not cover hail damage, Derbigum wanted the roofs inspected.
The building owner was suspicious of this because they could not understand why Derbigum would be paying for an inspection for damage that was not covered by the warranty. I was contacted on June 26 and immediately called Derbigum. Derbigum confirmed that Aspen Contracting had in fact been hired by Derbigum to inspect warranted roofs that may have been subjected to recent hail storms. Derbigum also stated that Derbigum’s reasoning for this is that discovering damage that insurance will cover will benefit both the building owner and Derbigum. Derbigum benefits from having damage repaired now, thereby possibly eliminating future claims on water leakage that may be a result of unrepaired hail damage. Derbigum also stated that if damage was discovered by Aspen’s inspection, Aspen would assist the building owner in negotiating with the owner’s insurance company and the original roofer to repair the damages, and that the original roof installer should do the repairs. Finally, Derbigum stated that there would not be any cost to the building owner related to Aspen’s services.
On July 10, 2013, Scott Goldsmith with Aspen Contracting emailed the building owner photographs of alleged hail damage to the building roof, along with a “damage checklist.” According to the building owner, Mr. Goldsmith stated that the building owner had to have either Aspen do the repairs or if another company did the repairs, Aspen had to approve the work.
On August 19, 2013, Michael Casey with Aspen Contracting Inc., met with the building owner and their insurance adjuster at the building to inspect the roof. Mr. Casey’s follow-up email later that day stated that “the roof had suffered permanent damage.” Mr. Casey stated that he did “test cuts on the roof which revealed an expensive insulation system that will have to be replaced (adding about 45% to the cost of the roof).” Mr. Casey went on to state that Aspen and the insurance adjuster were “coming to terms on the exact replacement cost for the roof. This normally is accompanied by a Service Agreement which binds us together for the purpose of the Project, with escape clauses.”
The above mentioned Claim Service Agreement contained the following clause:
"FEE: Owner acknowledges that they have allowed Aspen to help facilitate the insurance process and come to an agreed upon scope of loss. Aspen will charge a six percent (6%) service fee for this. The owner will pay Aspen from the claim proceeds for work performed to date. If Aspen is chosen by the owner to repair the storm damage and a contract for repair is agreed upon by the owner and Aspen, there will be no fee for services provided prior to the repair contract."
This clause conflicts with what Derbigum told me over the telephone on June 26, that Aspen was under contract with Derbigum and that the building owner would not be responsible for any cost related to Aspen’s services. I immediately called Derbigum and they eventually returned my call. After I explained the situation to Derbigum and the clause in the service agreement, Derbigum told me that “this is not the way it is supposed to work.” Derbigum said they would call the owner of Aspen and get back to me. I never heard back from Derbigum. Instead, someone with Aspen, possibly the owner Pat Nussbeck, called me. This individual stated that there was around $130,000 of needed repairs to the roof as a result of hail damage, and that a new cap sheet needed to be installed over all roof areas. He also stated that Derbigum would be issuing a new warranty to extend the warranty period due to the new cap sheet being installed. I asked him several times if he could explain why his service agreement conflicted with the information Derbigum was telling me. He never answered that question. Instead, he went on and on about the value Aspen brings to a project like this and that their services are not free. I again mentioned to him that, according to Derbigum, Derbigum was paying for his services, and that Aspen’s Claim Service Agreement made it look like Aspen would be paid an additional 6 percent of the cost of the repairs over what Derbigum was paying Aspen, if Aspen did not perform the repairs. I also told him that any insurance settlement would not include his requested 6 percent fee and that the building owner would have to pay Aspen out of their operating expenses for services they never requested. Naturally, he did not respond to any of my comments. Eventually in the conversation, I told him that this whole situation had the hint of a scam. He got very mad and threatened to sue me. I told him I had wasted enough time with him and hung up. I immediately called Derbigum and left another message for him. Now, 15 days later, I have yet to hear back from Derbigum.
On August 28, 2013, a representative of building owner’s insurance company made an inspection of the roof along with a roofing contractor that was not involved in the project. The only damage they found to the roof was from the test cuts made by Aspen. According to the roofing contractor that was present, these areas will need repaired to maintain the roof warranty.
It didn’t take much thought to suspect something was fishy, especially when Aspen stated that the roof insulation, which is covered with a 1/2- inch thick Securock, needed to be replaced, and considering that the Derbigum roof system carries a Factory Mutual SH hail resistant rating.
Is this a scam?
If so, beware, as Aspen has over 50 locations within the United States. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 604
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 04, 2013 - 05:16 pm: | |
This is an unsolicited contact by a contractor and not a direct contact from the roofing manufacturer. It already smells of a scam.
As a minimum, the contact, if legitimate, should have been made by the original roofing contractor/installer at the request of the roofing manufacturer.
Something is definately "fishy" here. |
|
4specs.com Home Page