A roofing supplement list with the third column: what the carrier says back, and how to answer it
There is no shortage of supplement checklists. Nearly all of them are two columns wide: the line item, and a sentence explaining what it is. That is fine if you are new. It is not much use on a Tuesday afternoon when a desk adjuster has just written back refusing six of the nine items you sent.
Because by then the question is no longer what is starter course. The question is: they said it is included in waste — now what?
So this list has a third column. For each item: what it is, the rejection that comes back most often, and what actually answers that rejection. The answers are specific on purpose. "Push back harder" is not an answer. "Send the manufacturer's installation instructions for the shingle that is actually on the roof" is.
Before the list: three habits that decide most of it
Answer the rejection they made, not the one you expected. The most common wasted reply we see is a warranty argument sent in response to a wear-and-tear exclusion. They are not the same objection and the warranty argument does not touch it.
Separate the physical fact from the coverage conclusion. You document what is on the roof and what the code requires. Whether the policy pays for it is the carrier's call and the policyholder's argument — not yours. Files get weaker, not stronger, when a contractor states a coverage conclusion.
Take the photograph before you need it. Several items below can only be evidenced before or during tear-off. Once the roof is off, no photograph will ever show what was underneath.
Measurement and access
Steep slope charge
Rejection: the slope is not documented in the file.
Answer: cite the measurement report by page and line. Then break the charge out per elevation rather than applying it to the whole roof — over-application to too large an area is the single most common error on this item, and it is the one that gets the whole charge struck.
High roof / two-storey charge
Rejection: it is a single-storey structure, so no high roof charge applies.
Answer: the building's storey count is not the measure. Measure the roof access height at each slope. A carrier guideline we hold on file defines this charge by access height, not by storeys — so a single-storey house with a high rear elevation can carry it.
Difficult access, scaffolding, fall protection
Rejection: included in general conditions.
Answer: a photograph with a measured reference in frame showing the actual constraint. This item is argued in words far too often and won with a picture.
Code-driven items
Drip edge
Rejection: it wasn't there before the loss.
Answer: code does not grandfather an absence. A replacement is installed under the code edition the jurisdiction has adopted, and IRC R905.2.8.5 requires drip edge at eaves and rakes on asphalt shingle roofs. Name the adopting jurisdiction and the adopted code year — without those two facts the argument is incomplete and easy to refuse. The longer version of this one is here.
Ice and water shield
Rejection: not required at valleys or penetrations, and felt with a separate secondary barrier is the matching replacement here.
Answer: this rejection argues about where the membrane goes. That is the wrong argument to have. Argue what was actually installed before the loss, and document it: the prior roofing permit, the prior invoice, or an inspection record. Like kind and quality is settled by what was there, not by where code would put it.
Re-nail decking to code
Rejection: code upgrades are not covered.
Answer: that is an ordinance-and-law question, and it is not yours to argue. Document the code requirement and the permit requirement, and stop there. Coverage limits differ by policy and can be exhausted; that conversation belongs to the policyholder and the carrier.
The "it's already included" family
Four items get refused with a version of the same sentence — that is already in another line. Each needs a different answer.
Starter course
Rejection: included in waste.
Answer: reply with the installation instruction sheet for the shingle actually installed, not with a general rule — and check it first, because manufacturers genuinely differ and the adjuster can look it up. Some refuse field-cut starter outright; others permit it. Sending a general claim that gets contradicted by the manufacturer's own document costs you the item and some credibility with it.
Hip and ridge cap
Rejection: it is in the shingle line — tear-off already covers cap removal, and replacement comes out of shingle waste.
Answer: two separate things are being argued and both need answering. Quantity comes from the ridge and hip lines on the measurement report. Product depends on the shingle: on architectural and dimensional shingles the cap is a separate manufactured product and is not cut from the field. On a three-tab roof it genuinely is cut from the field — and if that is the roof you are on, this item does not belong in your supplement.
Underlayment
Rejection: excluded as wear and tear along with the rest of the roof.
Answer: read that carefully — it is the wear-and-tear exclusion applied to the whole roof, not an objection to the product. A warranty argument does not touch it. Answer the exclusion first, then the underlayment separately.
Dumpster and haul-off for non-roofing trades
Rejection: included in the roofing line.
Answer: separate the trade. A carrier guideline we hold states that the roofing line items include haul-off and disposal — for roofing. Debris from siding, gutters, or interior work is not covered by that allowance, and saying so with the guideline in hand usually ends it.
Flashing and penetrations
Valley metal
Rejection: a closed valley could be used instead.
Answer: like kind and quality. Photograph the existing system. What could have been built is not the standard; what was there is.
Step flashing and counter flashing
Rejection: detach and reset is sufficient.
Answer: a close-up showing corrosion or deformation. For counter flashing, a section photograph showing the two distinct components — these get merged into one item constantly, and the photograph is what separates them.
Pipe jacks and boot flashing
Rejection: only one allowed.
Answer: one numbered photograph per penetration. This is the cheapest item on the list to win and the most commonly lost through lazy documentation.
Ventilation
Rejection: box vents would have been sufficient.
Answer: name the product before you argue the quantity. These are different line items measured differently — continuous ridge vent runs in linear feet, while box, turbine and other vents are counted each. Arguing quantity before product is how this one gets tangled.
Tear-off and what is under it
Decking and sheathing replacement
Rejection: pre-existing condition.
Answer: photographs from before and after tear-off. Post-tear-off-only evidence is routinely refused on this item, and fairly — it cannot distinguish storm damage from age. This is the item that most rewards planning your photographs before you climb.
Additional layer tear-off
Rejection: rare, and usually settled by a photo.
Answer: a core sample photograph. One frame, item closed.
Hidden damage found at tear-off
Rejection: late notice.
Answer: photograph at the moment of discovery and notify the same day. This item is lost on timing more than on merit.
Soft metals, matching, and the ones that go sideways
Gutters, downspouts, apron
Rejection: cosmetic only.
Answer: report hits as a count per slope, not as an adjective. "Significant denting" is an opinion. "Fourteen hits on the north elevation" is a measurement, and it is much harder to wave away.
Matching / uniform appearance
Rejection: a partial repair is sufficient; matching material can be harvested from another elevation.
Answer: supply the physical fact — that the material cannot be sourced — and get a material availability report to support it. Do not state the coverage conclusion. Matching rules vary a great deal between states, and a contractor who announces what the carrier owes has stepped outside their lane and handed the adjuster an easy reply.
Detach and reset of solar, satellite, rooftop equipment
Rejection: the roofer can do it; no recalibration required.
Answer: do not send a lump-sum subcontractor bid. Itemise material and labour separately and keep the specialty trade in its own category — a carrier guideline we hold prohibits entering it any other way, so a lump sum gets bounced on format before anyone reads the merits.
Overhead and profit
Rejection: you self-perform; gutters are the same trade; no general contractor is supervising a roofing-only job.
Answer: answer with the coordination the job actually needs, not with a count of trades. Set out each separate scope, who schedules it, and how it sequences against the others. A trade count invites a trade-count argument. A schedule does not.
Waste factor
Rejection: the standard is ten percent.
Answer: use the waste line from the measurement report for this roof. A flat ten percent is precisely the manual figure that a carrier guideline on file tells the adjuster to avoid — which means the rejection is not supported by the carrier's own instructions.
Permit fee
Rejection: estimated amount.
Answer: attach the actual receipt. Nothing else is needed.
Price list staleness
Rejection: the approval date governs.
Answer: the carrier's own price list version is the evidence. Name the version they used and the version in force for the month the work was performed.
How to actually use this
Do not send all of it. A supplement with items you cannot defend is worse than a shorter one where every line holds — because the weak items give the adjuster a reason to distrust the strong ones, and they read the file in order.
A workable pass:
- Read the carrier estimate against this list and mark what is absent.
- For each absent item, ask whether you can evidence it on this specific roof. If not, drop it now rather than after they refuse it.
- For what remains, write the reason before you write the quantity. If the reason will not go into two clean sentences, the item is not ready.
- Attach the photograph to the item, not to the file. An item with its own frame beside it is an argument; a bundle of photos at the back is a pile.
One note on estimating codes
You will find lists that hand you a category and selector to type straight into an estimating package for each of these. We do not print those unless the source can be established, and for several common items it cannot — the same item circulates with two different selectors, and neither appears in the reference documents we hold.
A wrong selector goes to someone whose job includes finding reasons to refuse, and it lets them refuse on a technicality that has nothing to do with the roof. Better a blank field and a solid physical fact.
Written for contractors preparing their own supplements. This is not legal advice, it is not a reading of anyone's policy, and it does not tell you what a carrier owes. Code adoption varies by jurisdiction — verify the adopted edition with the authority having jurisdiction for the property.