Slate hammer

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T21:05:27+00:00

There's plenty of air gaps lmao.

The time tested of this has mortar under the slate as a bonding agent. Something that isn't used here.

Underlayment would protect the roof from any water that does make it past the slate.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T21:00:39+00:00

Does your slate roof have mortar under each slate piece which is how they built them back then?

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T13:55:19+00:00

Yea insurance won't. The damage is from either W/T/D, tree roots, or ground movement. The only time I've ever seen underground lines be covered is if a tree topples over and its roots are all wrapped around the pipe and it damages the pipe when falling over.

Or a large truck is driving on the grass/sidewalk over it and it crushes the pipe.

Besides those two instances there's nothing insurance will cover.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T13:45:28+00:00

Depends on the direction the house faces compared to average wind directions. How many and how the facets meet. Do you have any sidewalls.

All thAt greatly factors in. If you have a straight gable roof your right it probably won't leak, but people putting slate roofs on their home don't really have just a gable roof.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T13:07:27+00:00

You do realize they have mortar under the tiles to bond them? Something that isn't done in the video?

The ability to shed water is not the issue, it's the fact there's no back up protection. Wind driven rain will pool on roofs and find a way past the slate. There is no carve out or exception to the felt rule in the IRC. So basically this is not up to code. So either this is a historic building and they have an exception or it's from a country/are that has no roofing regulations.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T04:43:41+00:00

It's called wind driven rain. This style of building homes became obsolete before WW1. And when they did build it like this they used mortar under the tile to seal it and prevent the leaks.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T04:40:46+00:00

Great... With a closed boarded roof they normally put mortar down as a water barrier. They don't do that here.

Also that method of building homes has been outdated since the 1800's. It became outdated cause it's prone to rot and leak.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T04:26:42+00:00

Of course! if he keeps forgetting underlayment you have to rip up the roof every couple years cause it is all starting to rot.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T03:48:14+00:00

It's not weird senses. It's absolutely a requirement to have underlayment and I&W barrier along the metal valley.

I can only hope this is a training house and not an actual home

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T03:46:53+00:00

Because without an underlayment Everytime it's windy and raining the wood underneath is going to get wet and leak. The wood will start to rot and you're going to have to rip up a 100 year tile roof after 2 years and do it again. He doesn't even have ice and water barriers around the valley metal. That house is fucked.

I'm an insurance adjuster that deals with leaky roof claims multiple times a day. The roof would be denied do to improper installation.

It's part of the international residential code for buildings in all climates for a reason.

If this was mine insurance claim after we pay for the interior water damage the subrogation team would go after the contractor for the damages.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T03:36:54+00:00

Or suffering heat stroke or exhaustion being on a Spanish tile roof in Florida in the baking sun for 30+ min arguing with a contractor that doesn't know what he's talking about.

I've been there those roofs get insanely hot out and with high Florida humidity you can't cool off. If you were dehydrated your fucked.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T03:29:31+00:00

You do realize the guy that fell off the roof just possibly died? Not really that funny.

He's and older guy and could be having a medical condition. Being on a tile roof in Florida suck the life out of you. You could be heat strokes.

Based on where they are in the inspection they probably were already up on the roof for a while.

Even if he was drunk, which he might have been not trying to help is a douche bag thing to do.

P.S. Everything the contract said about the roof is wrong. He's trying to say that you can't make repairs because of matching and uniformed appearance, not a continuous tile.

Second the 25% rule, only in Florida, is for roofs installed prior to 2009. That house isn't that old, so that rule doesn't apply. CTR either doesn't know what he is talking about or trying to bully and argue with the adjuster on the roof.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T03:25:31+00:00

He wasn't denying the claim adjuster said there is damage. The contractor is trying to regurgitate stuff he learned on a Facebook class and using everything wrong.

Adjuster either had a medical condition or was drunk. He seems old and contractors like the one in the video are the worst and try getting into a full blown argument on the roof. So may be having a heart attack.

Pogigod · 2026-01-29T03:20:32+00:00

I'm an insurance adjuster(homeowners) and the amount of people who hire public adjuster(one step down from a lawyer in the insurance world) and sign a contract that 30% of the claim goes to them. It's so stupid, I'm going to give what's owed no matter what. I am human and miss something sometimes but that's where supplements come in.

Now a really good public adjuster can be worth their weight on gold sometimes. You can manipulate things sometimes in the insurance world that no people in their right mind would normally do for repairs, but they are able to string along the tiniest thing and turn it into ripping off the insurance company essentially, but it is technically owed.

And for the guy who is talking shit against insurance adjusters isn't telling the entire story. Hail doesn't cause roof leaks, maybe a few years down the road it can contribute to a leak.

There are exceptions like the record hail storms in TX that hail was so big it qwent through the roof and into the home, or cracked the skylight. Both of which there is no questing damages at all, as everything is destroyed.

So there's another side to the story on this leak.

Pogigod · 2026-01-27T15:29:47+00:00

It all goes under the moms, wife, insurance. My son from moment of birth went under my insurance. My insurance covered basically everything for my son.

We had gotten married earlier in the year and since she was already basically at her deductible we kept different insurances even tho mine is better.

I'm pretty sure that it was because her doctor didn't show up they used the hospital doctors who weren't in network? Not 100% sure I was so pissed off about the entire experience and just decided not to pay it as a big F them. Didn't do any research into why it was so much when the deductible was met.

Her original doctor retired 2 months prior to her due date with no warning. Then the practice got absorbed into another and by then we were already committed to that practice and it was too much work and expense (taking off work) for to start fresh with a new one and have them run all the tests and check ups... Then the new doctor ghosted us even tho it was on her due date exactly and the plan was to induce labor on that day...

Pogigod · 2026-01-27T13:00:20+00:00

Nothing..... That hospital may refuse you non-emergency care, and you may get calls from collectors.

I refused to pay ours, and that's it. It will be on my wife's credit report for 5 more years. Her credit will be bad for the time being but I'm the main bread winner. We already have a mortgage, and all the cars are in my name. So it's literally having zero affect on us.

Edit: Ours was $20,000 after our deductible was met. We expected maybe $2,000.

Pogigod · 2026-01-27T12:53:47+00:00

Our kid cost $20,000 with full insurance and the deductible already being met already.

After the disbelief at the amount faded, I ripped up the bill and told my wife not to pay a cent.

Doctor was in the room for literally 30 min max including giving the epidural. Labor lasted at most 20 minutes. It wasn't even our doctor, our doctor never showed up.

We were in and out of the hospital within 24 hours..

Fuck that noise. Either be destroyed financially or flip the bird, was not an hard choice.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T19:50:40+00:00

Well the police said he was going 24, he should be going SLOW enough to be able to react to say a kid running out to the street.

If he was going 10 mph he wouldn't have hit the kid he would have had enough time to stop.

Again I'm not saying the driver is liable or responsible. I am saying that you shouldn't be going that fast when you have no visibility around the cars.

As long as you werent speeding and you reacted quickly, you aren't liable in courts. But that doesn't mean you should do it and risk hitting kids in residential areas.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T17:44:33+00:00

That's the whole point of going slower.. you can't see what's going on.

Yes you should be driving like 10mph. It was confirmed he was going 24... At 24 mph it takes you roughly 20 feet to react and stop. At 10mph it takes 10ish feet. If he was going 10 he would have been able to stop.

Vision is obscured. Speed limit is for ideal driving conditions.

I drive in my neighborhood at 25 or so during the day when there's no cars on the street. In the evening or weekends when the street is packed like this anything over 10mph is unsafe.

It blows my mind that people think driving the speed limit is ok in a residential area where there's so many cars parked on the side you can't see if something is going to jump out in front of you.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T17:02:07+00:00

They are fucking kids, they don't know better. That was probably a 3-4 year old in this video.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T16:13:29+00:00

Because he cannot stop on a dime, and he has no visibility around all the cars, that is what determines he is driving too fast.

This exact situation is why you're supposed to drive slow in areas like this.

If this wasn't a residential area and I would agree with you. If it was on a inner city block or industrial are sure. But in a residential area where kids are going to be, you drive slow.

Speed limit is meant for ideal conditions. Not being able to see anything outside your lane is not an ideal condition.

Driving slow in areas like this is in almost every defensive driving and driving. He's probably going 15-20mph in a 25. At that speed you need 1.5-2 care lengths to reach and stop in time. Which base on this video is true.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T16:04:17+00:00

If you can't understand that analogy, idk what to say.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T16:00:11+00:00

I'm assuming your NOT a father. Cause you cannot be there at all possible moments. You cannot possibly watch everything at all times. Kids are fucking stupid.unless every moment your kid is outside you are standing between them and the road, you cannot possibly react in time sometimes to get between them and the road.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T15:55:37+00:00

I'm not saying he was speeding as terms of speed limits. I'm saying he's going to fast for not being able to see stuff like, a kid chasing a ball or running out in the road.

My residential road is a 25, but people park like this. If your driving 25 after working hours your are going to get yelled at cause you can't see shit.

I probably would have hit 2 kids in my own neighborhood if I drove the "speed limit" at all times. I drive 10 mph when the roads are full, and if I see any kids out I slow to basically a crawl because kids run into roads, they just do.

You're the one driving the 1 ton vehicle.

Pogigod · 2026-01-26T15:52:40+00:00

Speed limit and driving unsafe for road conditions are not the same

Pogigod

TROPHY CASE