Anatomy of a $14,200 Supplement: Real Line Items from a Denver Hail Claim

I want to walk you through a real supplement from start to finish. Names and addresses are anonymized, but everything else is exactly as it went down — the original adjuster's estimate, the items I flagged, the supplement language I used, and what the carrier ultimately paid.

The headline numbers: the first estimate came in at $9,847. After one round of supplementing, the total approved payment was $24,056. That's $14,209 added to the claim — a 2.4x multiple on the original estimate — on a middle-of-the-road residential hail loss that looked unremarkable from the street.

This is the kind of claim most roofers accept, cash, and move on. Here's what happens when you don't.

The Claim in One Page

The Adjuster's Original Estimate

The carrier dispatched an independent adjuster after the hail event. He walked the roof, chalked two test squares on the south slope, and wrote an estimate in Xactimate that looked like this:

At first glance, this looks reasonable. There's a tear-off, there are shingles, there's gutters, there's tax. Most contractors would sign off on this, cash the check, and do the work.

That's the mistake. This estimate is missing $14,000 of items that are either code-required, manufacturer-required, or statute-protected. Here's what I caught.

What Was Wrong With It

I ran the estimate through a line-by-line audit before writing a single word of supplement. Here are the gaps:

1. Two slopes tested, four slopes damaged. The adjuster chalked only the south slope. Hail hit all four main slopes plus the porch, and I had photos of impacts on each.
2. No matching statute application. The existing shingles were GAF Timberline HD in Weathered Wood — a discontinued color on a discontinued line. Under Colorado's C.R.S. 10-4-110.8 matching statute, the carrier owed full line-of-sight replacement.
3. Ice and water shield missing from valleys, penetrations, and code-required hip coverage. Only 3 SQ of eave IWS was included. The actual required coverage was closer to 9 SQ.
4. No rake drip edge. Only eave drip edge at 120 LF. Adding rakes doubled the footage to roughly 240 LF.
5. No starter course. Buried inside the shingle line item. Starter is a separate product (Xactimate code RFG STRTR) and belongs on its own line.
6. No steep pitch labor. The main slopes were 8/12, which triggers RFG STEEP1 at roughly +12% labor on tear-off, underlayment, and install. Missing entirely.
7. No ridge vent replacement. The existing ridge vent was aluminum and visibly hail-dented. Needs replacement; missing from scope.
8. No gutter guard or downspout detach/reset. Gutters were replaced but the existing downspout kicks and splash blocks weren't accounted for.
9. No garage door skin or screens. Two screens and the garage door skin had visible hail damage. Not on the adjuster's estimate.
10. No multi-trade O&P. This claim involved roofing, gutters, screens, and garage door — four trades. O&P at 10%+10% applied to the full coordinated scope and was missing entirely.
11. Xactimate pricing version. The adjuster's pricing was dated three months behind the current Aurora, CO ZIP price list. A small but real difference on a six-figure repair.

The 11 Items I Added in the Supplement

Here's the supplement itemized. Each line lists what I added, the Xactimate code, and the dollar value.

The Actual Supplement Letter

I submitted one supplement letter that bundled every item together. Here's the structure I used — you can copy this for your own claims.

Subject: Supplement Request — Claim # [XXXX] — [Address]

Adjuster of record: [Name]
Original estimate date: [Date]
Original estimate total (RCV): $9,847.32
Supplement total requested: $14,209.00
Revised total (RCV): $24,056.32

This supplement request addresses scope items missing from the original estimate. Each item below is supported by code citation, Xactimate reference, manufacturer requirement, or Colorado statute as applicable. Photos and measurements are attached for every item.

1. Matching statute application (C.R.S. 10-4-110.8): The existing roof is GAF Timberline HD in Weathered Wood, a discontinued product. Replacement of only the damaged slopes would result in a visible mismatch within the same line of sight from the street. Per C.R.S. 10-4-110.8, requesting full slope replacement across all 6 slopes (4 main + 2 porch). Additional scope: 8.2 SQ of shingles, tear-off, underlayment, and associated labor. Value: $3,420.

2. Ice and water shield at valleys, hips, and penetrations: Per GAF installation instructions, IWS is required at all valleys, hips, and penetrations. Current estimate includes eave coverage only. Requesting additional 6 SQ of IWS per Xactimate code RFG IWS. Value: $480.

[Items 3-10 omitted for brevity — each follows the same format with code citation and dollar value.]

11. General contractor overhead and profit: This loss involves four coordinated trades (roofing, gutters, screens, garage door). Per the Xactware O&P White Paper and standard industry practice for multi-trade losses, GC overhead at 10% and profit at 10% should be applied to the total coordinated scope. Total coordinated scope after supplement: $36,220. Requested O&P at 20% = $7,244. Value: $7,244.

Please confirm receipt of this supplement and provide an expected review timeline. I'm available to discuss any line item directly.

Thank you,
[Contractor name]

The Carrier's Response

The supplement was submitted on a Tuesday. Here's how the next ten days played out.

Day 2: Acknowledgment

The adjuster confirmed receipt and said the supplement was being forwarded to his team leader for review.

Day 5: Partial pushback

The team leader came back agreeing to items 2-10 without argument ($6,545 approved) but pushing back on two items: the matching statute application and the O&P.

On matching: "We can source a close match to the existing Timberline HD in Weathered Wood and spot-repair the damaged slopes." I responded by asking for the exact product they intended to source and a physical sample delivered to the job site for side-by-side comparison. Within 48 hours the team leader conceded the match wasn't feasible.

On O&P: "We don't consider this a three-trade loss. Gutters and screens are part of the roofing scope, not separate trades." I responded with the Xactware O&P White Paper citation and pointed out that gutters are written under a separate Xactimate trade category (GTR), screens under WDW, and garage door under GAR — four distinct Xactimate trade codes. The team leader agreed and approved O&P on the recalculated scope.

Day 10: Full approval

The revised estimate came through at $24,056.41, matching the supplement request within $1. Check was issued two weeks later.

Lessons You Can Apply Tomorrow

1. The biggest line item is usually the one you're not asking for.

On this claim, O&P alone was 51% of the supplement total. If I'd forgotten to ask for it, the claim would have ended at $16,812 instead of $24,056.

2. Matching statutes are leverage, not hope.

Colorado's C.R.S. 10-4-110.8 turned a 2-slope repair into a 6-slope replacement. The statute did the work. I just cited it.

3. Always walk the roof yourself before signing off on an estimate.

The adjuster chalked two test squares on one slope. I found impacts on all four main slopes plus both porch sections, documented with photos. That was the foundation for the entire scope expansion.

4. Every rejection becomes an approval if you respond with paper.

The team leader said no to matching and O&P initially. Both items got approved within 48 hours after I responded with specific documentation. Nothing changed except the paperwork.

5. The supplement letter format matters.

Clean structure, itemized, code-cited, photo-attached supplements get approved. Vague "we need more money" letters get declined. The format is the product.

Related Reading

• The Adjuster Decoder: 23 Phrases Roofers Hear and What They Mean
• State Farm Roof Claim Playbook
• Does Colorado Have a Matching Statute for Roof Insurance Claims?
• Overhead and Profit on Roofing Insurance Claims
• 5 Line Items Adjusters Miss on Every Roof Claim