Knowing the method is most of the difference between a claim that settles and one that argues.
An adjuster is not walking your roof looking for dents. They are running a repeatable method designed to answer one question: is there *functional* damage, caused by hail, sufficient to require replacement rather than repair.
Understanding that method explains almost every frustrating outcome in a hail claim — including why your roof was denied when your neighbour’s was approved, and why two inspectors looking at the same roof reached different answers.
The standard approach is to mark a square on each slope — commonly 10 feet by 10 feet — and count qualifying hail impacts inside it. Insurers apply thresholds: a certain number of hits within the square, on a certain number of slopes, before the slope or the roof qualifies for replacement. This is why placement matters enormously. Hail falls in streaks and does not distribute evenly across a roof. A square placed in a lightly-hit area of a genuinely damaged slope produces a low count and a denial. That is not necessarily bad faith — it’s a sampling method, and sampling has variance. It is also exactly why an independent assessment that documents the whole slope carries weight.
The distinction that decides most disputes. **Functional damage** shortens the life or impairs the performance of the roof — a bruise that has fractured the mat, granule loss exposing asphalt, a puncture. **Cosmetic damage** is marking that doesn’t affect performance, and many policies exclude it, particularly on metal. On asphalt shingles the argument is usually about bruising: a soft spot where the mat has fractured under intact-looking granules. It is felt as much as seen, it doesn’t photograph well without raking light and a scale reference, and it is the single most common thing a rushed inspection misses.
Adjusters look beyond the shingles, and so should any report submitted to them. Soft metals record hail unambiguously.
Rarely because one party is lying. Usually because of test square placement, lighting conditions on the day, whether the inspector was trained to recognise bruising versus mechanical marking or normal weathering, and whether they assessed against a published methodology or their own judgement. Two people using different definitions of damage will reach different conclusions on the same roof, every time. That is the entire reason we assess to HAAG methodology: it’s the standard most North American adjusters are trained on, so the report and the reviewer are working from the same definitions.
Be there. Ask where the test squares are being placed and why. Ask the adjuster to look at the soft metals. If you have an independent report, provide it before the inspection rather than after — it’s far easier to agree a scope on the roof than to reopen one afterwards. And if you disagree with the outcome, a supplement with new documentation is a normal part of the process, not a fight.
No. A denial can be supplemented with new documentation, reinspected, and if it stays deadlocked on the amount rather than on coverage, many policies contain an appraisal clause. Each is a normal step. What changes outcomes is evidence, not persistence.
Hail falls in streaks, so genuinely different damage on the same street is common. It can also be test square placement or a different inspector. What your neighbour’s approval does establish is that a damaging storm hit your street — which removes the hardest argument.
Yes, and you should be. You don’t need to go on the roof. Being there means you can ask where squares are being placed, point out the gutters and the AC unit, and hear the reasoning first-hand rather than reading a conclusion weeks later.
When it’s documented to a methodology the adjuster recognises, yes — it gives them something to reason from rather than something to argue with. A report that just asserts damage without test squares, photographs and scale references adds nothing.
Drop your name and a way to reach you. We'll follow up with next steps — no pressure, no sales call.
