Wind and hail storm damage estimating methodology

A storm-damage inspection is done systematically rather than by scanning for obvious damage and stopping. Each roof slope is inspected separately, since wind and hail exposure differ by slope orientation — a slope facing the direction the storm came from typically shows more damage than a sheltered slope, and documenting that difference supports the overall damage pattern. Siding is inspected by elevation for the same reason. Gutters, downspouts, and other exterior metal components are inspected because they often show hail impact clearly (dents in soft aluminum) even when roofing damage is less obvious, making them a useful cross-check on whether a hail event actually reached the property with damaging force.

The inspection should record what was found on every slope and elevation, not only the areas where damage was found — a slope with no damage is itself a documented finding that supports the overall pattern (storm-direction-consistent damage, for instance) rather than an unexplained gap in the file.

A test square is a marked, representative sample area — commonly 10 feet by 10 feet — used on each roof slope to count hail impacts within a defined, repeatable area rather than relying on an impression of the whole slope. Impact counts from test squares on each slope support a consistent, documented damage-density finding and let a reviewer check the same specific area if the finding is questioned. Test squares are typically placed away from edges and penetrations, in a representative section of the slope, and photographed with the marked boundary visible in the frame.

The number and placement of test squares should be recorded along with the count from each one, not just an averaged or summarized figure for the slope. A slope with a single test square showing heavy impact density is a weaker finding than the same slope with three test squares in different sections all showing consistent density — the second case demonstrates the damage pattern is representative of the slope rather than concentrated in one sampled area by chance.

Distinguishing genuine hail impact from other causes is the central skill in hail estimating, because several other conditions produce marks that can superficially resemble hail damage. Hail impact typically appears as randomly distributed, roughly circular, soft-edged bruising with displaced or missing granules and, on some materials, a corresponding mat or fiberglass exposure at the impact point. Mechanical damage — foot traffic during a prior repair, dropped tools, satellite dish mounting, or manufacturing defects — tends to follow a different pattern: linear paths, clustering around access points, sharp rather than soft edges, or a pattern that does not correspond to any plausible hailstone trajectory.

Because this distinction is frequently disputed, each documented impact point should be photographed individually with enough context to show its shape and location, not just noted as a count. A test-square hit count without supporting photographs of individual impacts is much weaker evidence than the same count with each impact documented.

Wind damage is assessed differently than hail damage: the question is not how many marks are present but whether the pattern of missing or displaced material is consistent with wind uplift forces. Uplift typically concentrates at roof edges, rakes, eaves, and ridges — the areas where wind generates the greatest pressure differential — and shows creased shingles (bent but not detached), torn sealant strips, and fastener patterns consistent with material being pulled rather than simply aged and dislodged. Scattered missing shingles in the field of a roof, away from edges, with no creasing or fastener disturbance, are a different fact pattern that should not automatically be attributed to wind without a more specific finding.

Building codes change over time, and a property built or last roofed under an older code may not comply with current requirements once a covered repair triggers code enforcement. Ordinance or law coverage — usually a separate endorsement rather than a standard policy feature — can pay for the increased cost of bringing the repaired portion up to current code, where that coverage was purchased; a policy without it typically leaves that increased cost uncovered.

Matching disputes arise whenever a storm damages only part of a roof slope, one elevation of siding, or a section of another uniform surface, and the available replacement material does not match the surrounding undamaged material in color or profile due to weathering or discontinued products. As with other perils, whether the insurer must extend replacement beyond the damaged section to achieve a uniform appearance depends on state law and the specific policy — this varies and is not a uniform rule nationally.

A storm claim is strengthened by tying the claimed damage date to an actual, documented weather event at that location. NOAA's Storm Events Database records hail size, wind speed, and event location and timing for reported storm events, and the Storm Prediction Center publishes local storm reports that can corroborate a specific date and area. Referencing this data does not itself prove that a specific property was damaged, but it establishes that a weather event capable of causing the claimed damage actually occurred at the claimed time and place, which is a foundational fact the rest of the claim depends on.

Photo evidence and server-computed measurements in PaxExact are attached to specific rooms, slopes, and elevations today, supporting a test-square and per-slope documentation approach. Storm line items are entered by the estimator today: PaxExact's suggested line items from accepted damage observations, in beta, cover only interior water, smoke, soot and mold damage, not roofing, siding or hail work.