Hail, an Eight-Year-Old Roof Certification, and a Friday Deadline
You are inspecting a 1998 two-story house with a 5:12 gable roof. You walk it. The south slope carries two layers of three-tab asphalt shingles - the original plus a 2009 overlay - and granules are collecting in the valleys and at the gutter line. Three tabs are missing near the ridge, and a tarp-covered patch sits below the chimney. Hail dents are visible on the aluminum gutter, the downspouts, and the air-conditioner condenser fins; the shingle mats themselves show no fresh fractures or exposed fiberglass. The seller supplies a 2016 letter from a roofing contractor stating the roof has 'five years of serviceable life remaining.' The buyer's agent tells you the deal dies Friday if you write 'hail damage.' Outdoor temperature is 34 degrees F and the attic sheathing shows no staining.
1. How do you separate cosmetic hail evidence from functional damage, and what exactly do you write?
Read the worked answer
Separate three questions: Did hail reach this property? Did it damage the shingles? Who decides whether it is an insurance claim?
The dents on the gutter, downspouts, and condenser fins are impact evidence and establish that hail struck the property. They say nothing about the shingle mat. Functional hail damage means a fracture through the mat, exposed fiberglass, or a shingle displaced enough that it no longer sheds water. Granule loss on a 26-year-old three-tab roof is what ageing looks like, and at 34 degrees F the shingles are brittle enough that an impact can knock granules loose without fracturing the mat. That distinction is exactly why an inspector should not pronounce on hail damage from the ridge.
Wording. 'Impact marks consistent with hail were observed on the aluminum gutters, downspouts, and air-conditioner condenser fins. No fractures through the shingle mat, exposed fiberglass mat, or hail-related displacement of shingles was observed on the areas inspected. This is not a determination of the roof's insurability or of whether an insurance claim is warranted; that determination is properly made by a qualified roofing contractor and the insurer's adjuster.'
What not to write: not 'no hail damage' - I cannot prove a negative across the whole roof - and not 'the roof has hail damage,' which asserts a mat fracture I did not see. 'Consistent with' and 'not observed' are the honest verbs.
2. The agent says the deal dies Friday if you write hail damage. What is your ethical and practical response?
Read the worked answer
Duty runs to the client, not to the closing schedule. The Code of Ethics requires me to report what I find and forbids accepting any arrangement that compromises my objectivity; a request to suppress or reshape a finding is exactly that kind of arrangement.
Handling it. Say it once, in plain language: 'I am going to describe what I saw. If the shingles are sound, the report will say so, and a roofing contractor who inspects them can say so in writing - that will carry more weight with an underwriter than anything I write, because I am not a roofing contractor.' Then stop arguing. If it continues, note it in the file with date and time.
What actually helps the deal. A specific, non-alarmist narrative plus a named next step: impact marks on metals, no mat fractures observed, two layers with granule loss, recommend a roofing contractor's inspection and a written scope. That gives the buyer something to negotiate with and gives the lender a document that does not read like a red flag. A vague 'hail damage' with no scope is what kills closings; a precise report rarely does.
One trap to avoid. Do not trade a softer finding for future referrals. The inspector who writes what the agent wants is the inspector whose report is worth nothing to the client who paid for it.
3. What do you say about walking this roof at 34 degrees F, about the two layers, and about the 2016 certification letter?
Read the worked answer
Walking is a judgement call, not a requirement. The SOP does not require me to walk the roof. Where conditions are unsafe, or where the method would damage the roof, I inspect from the ground with binoculars, from a ladder at the eaves, or with a camera on a pole, and I state the method. At 34 degrees F, three-tab shingles are at the brittle end of their range. If I crack tabs on an old roof, I have damaged the property and created a condition I must now disclose in my own report. The narrative should read: 'Roof was inspected from the ground with binoculars and from the eaves; the roof surface was not walked because of material condition and temperature.'
Two layers. Current model code permits only one layer of new asphalt shingles over an existing layer, and many manufacturers void the warranty on an overlay. Practically, an overlay hides the original deck, the underlayment, and the flashing at the chimney and valleys, so the limit of my inspection is wider here than usual and the report should say so. The tarp patch below the chimney is a finding in itself: someone had an active leak and covered it rather than repaired it.
The 2016 letter. A letter is not a warranty and it is now eight years old. I do not rely on it as evidence of present condition. I do tell the buyer to obtain the contractor's written scope of what was inspected and to confirm whether any warranty is transferable. I do not estimate remaining life - that number is a guess dressed as a fact, and the contractor's guess is as old as the roof's last decade.