1 /5 Kirsten Lute: I submitted an initial roof claim back in 2023 for wind/hail damage. My contractor at the time performed a brittle test, at the request of the adjuster representing Allstate. The contractor took photos documenting the failed repair of shingles. After consideration of this, Allstate only wanted to pay for repairs to the roof, instead of a full replacement. My contractor also stated it would be a huge liability for them to repair the roof, as it would cause more damage. So my husband and I decided to have nothing done to the roof.
Fast forward to now, I decided to look in to a roof replacement again. The old claim was reopened and assigned to a new adjuster. Upon review of the initial brittle test/pictures, she communicated with my contractor at extent, that our roof was clearly not repairable after all, and submitted a request for a full replacement to management. After this submission, it was mysteriously declared repairable again, despite no new evidence or findings. I called the Dean Barnard group to help me with the contradictions and navigating the situation. After the agent representative spoke with the new adjuster, I was given a call back and notified that the decision stands (but that I could call the adjuster with any questions) and that she cannot override the claims department. This is clearly an ethical violation, as my roof cannot be repairable and unrepairable simultaneously. And if it was so obvious to the new adjuster that my roof was not repairable, then why after speaking to the manager, did the consensus change to that it is repairable?