PDA

View Full Version : Question for a roofer?


jkski
08-11-2011, 09:32 AM
I recently had a tree fall on a rental home I own and the tree punctured the roof in about 5-6 places. Naturally, insurance covered the damage and agreed to replace the entire roof. So, when the roofing company got up there to tear-off the old they called and stated that the decking was soft and delaminating in spots and advised replacing 50 sheets of decking. Having been on the roof in the past, I knew it was a bit spongey in spots so rather than put a new roof over crap decking, I told them to go ahead and replace it at my cost, seeing as how it was not truly damaged by the tree.
So, there was a good bit of additional damage and my contractor and the insurance company could not see eye to eye so I had to move on to a different contractor to get the work completed. When the new contractor arrived to review the scope of the job, he inspected the attic area and noted that 2 of the trusses were cracked from the tree falling and that the new decking was simply placed overtop of the old as you could see the spots in the old decking where the tree had punctured thru.
So, my question: Is it normal roofing practice to simply re-deck over old/spongy decking and/or iver top of holes or are you supposed to rip it off and put on new?

I really can't blame the roofing company for the cracked trusses seeing as how the insurance adjuster did not note them either...not sure how but have to imagine neither the initial contractor nor the adjuster bothered to go up in the attic.

Thoughts?

73blue
08-11-2011, 10:23 AM
Was your original contractor a local guy that was recommended or a storm chaser? I ask because we've had many fly-by-night roofers chase the hail and tornado damage in our area. Just sounds like the same spill, ie whole roof needs replaced, etc. It doesn't necessarily hurt anything to deck over the existing (providing its not completely rotten) and its obviously much quicker (which is why they do it) but a good contractor would probably take the time to remove and replace.

And I'm not normally a blamer, but yeah, it is the original contractors fault for not identifying the trusses and the adjuster's for not double-checking. The contractor (if he's a storm-chaser) doesn't make his money by taking time to demo a roof and replace trusses. Takes way too long. He wants to cover it and get to the next one.

jkski
08-11-2011, 10:45 AM
Thanks for the feedback. The original contractor is a local, well established/respected company that has been in business for many years. The only reason I question the practice is that I am no expert and just wondered what protocol would be for such an occurrence.
I, unfortunately, did not inspect the atic area either, so I have a hard time putting blame on the contractor or insurance adjuster without accpeting some of it myself.
So, with a new contractor in place and the added damage discovered, it would appear that they wil need to peel off a portion of the new roof, replaced the damaged trusses and then put everything back....to do it right and pass any inspections from potential buyers down the road.

This is going to get interesting.

SkiDog
08-11-2011, 11:33 AM
Thanks for the feedback. The original contractor is a local, well established/respected company that has been in business for many years. The only reason I question the practice is that I am no expert and just wondered what protocol would be for such an occurrence.
I, unfortunately, did not inspect the atic area either, so I have a hard time putting blame on the contractor or insurance adjuster without accpeting some of it myself.
So, with a new contractor in place and the added damage discovered, it would appear that they wil need to peel off a portion of the new roof, replaced the damaged trusses and then put everything back....to do it right and pass any inspections from potential buyers down the road.

This is going to get interesting.

If the trusses are only cracked, there's no need to replace the whole truss. Just scab on to the side of the cracked area with the LONGEST board possible. make sure to get the truss as straight as possible too. This way, you won't have to remove ALL the decking, now that its been decked over. I wouldn't have decked over the old plywood, but honestly, its not going to hurt anything, UNLESS he used short nails that didn't get down into the trusses good. If he used 3- 3 1/2'' nails, then you're good. Have a look in the attic and see how his nail pattern is. If he hit the trusses you'll be OK. You might have to get the next bigger size aluminum eve drip to cover the additional plywood decking.
Also, the insurance Co. should cover the cost of the truss fix, even though they missed it too. Good Luck!

jkski
08-11-2011, 11:57 AM
SkiDog or anyone else who might like to offer an opinion,

If I allow them to sister the truss with a board alongside, would that pass an inspection from a potential buyers inspector? While I know it would be strong enough, etc., my chief concern is that the day I go to sell it, an inspector will crawl up there and see the board and really ding me for it possibly causing me to lose the sale......I realize this is worst case scenario but just looking for an opinion.

stuartmcnair
08-11-2011, 01:33 PM
Sistering the boards will pass inspection without a problem. You NEVER put new decking over old as it probably has moisture in it. That will cause severe problems down the road. My parents home was damaged in the tornado and the roofer had to replace about ten sheets of decking @ $35 each. Also had to repair two trusses by sistering. Inspector passed it. Said they did a fantastic job.