On 2021-03-08 10:50 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>> John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
>>
>> That roof was replaced, not restored, and you were ripped off.
>
> They re-used some of the original tiles.Â* How does that qualify for
> "replaced" as opposed to restored?

I have to think of it in comparison to my roof. I had a new roof a few
years back and then I had a huge branch fall on the roof, punching a
couple holes in the roof and ripping off a l of soffit, fascia and
eavestroughing. Two of the three sections of roof were unaffected but
the insurance company replaced everything. The total bill was a little
more than $24,000. That is a lot more roof than John's house. They used
40 year shingles, which is probably more life than John's old clay tiles
have left in them, new fascia, soffits, eavestrough and gutter guards
and and all thatless than 1/4 the price of John's farmer fix.