The adjuster and my roofer disagree. Now what?
Two people looked at the same roof and wrote down different things. That is normal, it is not a scandal, and the useful first move is not picking a side.
Work out which of three things you are actually arguing about, because they go to different places: scope, meaning what work the event requires, price, meaning what that agreed work is worth, or coverage, meaning whether the policy responds at all. Scope disputes go through supplements and reinspection requests, price disputes can go to the policy's appraisal clause, and coverage disputes belong to licensed professionals or the state regulator. Sorting the disagreement into the right category first saves weeks, and no one can promise any category ends in your favor.
01 /Why two honest inspections disagree
The two people were not answering the same question. An adjuster is documenting what a covered event did, working within a policy, a price list, and an assignment. A roofing contractor is documenting what the roof needs to be sound, working from the deck up. Those overlap heavily and they are not the same document, so a difference between them is expected rather than evidence that somebody is wrong.
They also stood in different places, sometimes on different days, with different equipment and different amounts of time. A slope that was not walked did not get documented. Interior staining nobody was shown did not enter the file. Most gaps between the two papers are gaps in what each person saw, and those are the easiest kind to close.
The rarer and harder disagreement is about cause: whether what is on the roof came from a dated event or from age. That one is a coverage question wearing a scope question's clothes, and it belongs in the third category below.
02 /Sort it before you escalate it
Put the two documents next to each other and go line by line. For every difference, ask which of three things it is. That single sorting pass tells you where the disagreement is allowed to go.
| THE DIFFERENCE LOOKS LIKE | IT IS ACTUALLY | WHERE IT GOES |
|---|---|---|
| An item on one document and not the other | Scope | A written supplement with photos and line items |
| Damage on a slope nobody inspected | Scope | A written reinspection request |
| Same item, different quantity | Scope | Measurements, resubmitted |
| Same item, same quantity, different dollars | Price | Documented pricing, then the appraisal clause if it deadlocks |
| This is wear, not storm damage | Coverage | Not the appraisal clause. A licensed professional, or DIFS |
That last row is the one that costs people the most time. The appraisal clause is a mechanism for settling amount when coverage is already agreed, and pointing it at a causation dispute usually goes nowhere. How it does work is in the appraisal clause on roof claims, and when a carrier brings in its own expert to answer the causation question, that path is in when insurance sends an engineer to your roof.
The line-by-line method itself, with the five reasons gaps appear and the order to work them in, is the parent guide below. Sorting is this page's job; the walkthrough is that one's.
03 /What actually moves a disagreement
- Photographs with dates, of every slope, including the ones nobody argued about. A complete set is more persuasive than a dramatic one.
- Measurements that can be checked. Quantity disputes resolve faster than any other kind because both sides can count.
- A scope written in line items, in the same language the carrier's estimate uses, so a reviewer can compare rather than translate.
- Weather records tying the damage to a dated event, which matters most on an older roof, where the wear argument is always available.
- Everything in writing, with a dated log of who said what. A reinspection request that exists only as a phone call did not happen.
What does not move it: telling the adjuster your roofer has more experience, a second contractor who disagrees without documenting anything, or arguing the same point louder. A reinspection request that names specific missed items and attaches the evidence is a different animal, and how to write one is in how to request a roof claim reinspection.
04 /What we do here, and what we will not do
| WHAT WE DO | HOW | WHAT WE WILL NOT SAY |
|---|---|---|
| Walk and document the roof | Every slope photographed and measured, dated | That our report settles anything |
| Write a comparable scope | Line items, in the estimate's own language | That the carrier must accept it |
| Attend the inspection | We can meet your adjuster on siteno charge | That attending changes the decision |
| Say what we actually found | Storm damage, wear, or both, plainly | That it is storm damage because you need it to be |
In Michigan, negotiating a claim for compensation sits behind a license no roofing contractor holds, which is precisely why what we bring to a disputed file is evidence and not argument. Where a dispute needs someone else entirely, the honest map of who does what is in public adjuster versus roofer versus attorney. If the roof simply needs replacing regardless of how the claim lands, asphalt replacement runs $9,000 to $18,000, with most homes landing between $12,000 and $16,000.
The line-by-line comparison method, the five reasons gaps appear, and the order to work them, are in the guide on a contractor estimate higher than the insurance estimate.
The follow-up questions
Only if the third one brings something the first two did not, such as an interior inspection nobody performed, attic access nobody took, or documentation of a slope that went unwalked. A third opinion that repeats the second adds no new information to the file, and claims are decided on what the file contains. If the disagreement is about causation rather than about what is physically there, the more useful step is usually a written request that the carrier reinspect with your contractor present.
You can ask, in writing, and carriers handle that differently, so nobody can tell you in advance how yours will respond. In practice a reinspection request that names specific missed items tends to get further than a request about the person, because it gives the file something concrete to act on. If you believe the claim is being handled improperly rather than simply decided against you, Michigan's insurance regulator takes consumer complaints and that channel exists for exactly this.
Longer than it feels like it should, and Michigan does put timing rules on the carrier's side of a first-party claim, including a written explanation of what counts as a satisfactory proof of loss and a payment window measured from that proof. Those rules are worth knowing and citing by name if a file goes quiet. Keep a dated log of every contact from the first call, because the log is what turns a vague sense of delay into something a regulator can look at.
- MCL 500.2006, Michigan's Uniform Trade Practices Act timely-payment provision: an insurer must specify in writing what constitutes a satisfactory proof of loss within 30 days of receiving a claim, payment is timely if made within 60 days of that satisfactory proof of loss, and untimely first-party benefits carry 12% simple interest per year from day 60. legislature.mi.gov: MCL 500.2006
- Michigan DIFS, consumer insurance resources and the complaint process. michigan.gov/difs: consumers
- Verisk (Xactware), Xactimate estimating platform: regional price lists and line-item structure used by carriers. verisk.com
- Haag, engineering-based damage assessment methodology for hail and wind effects on roofing. haagglobal.com