Is it fair to replace the entire roof when just one or two shingles are damaged?

That's the question at the center of the latest roofing industry debate between insurance lawyer Steve Badger and NextGen Restoration owner Josh Steinberger.

So who’s in the right? Let’s break it down. 

Badger vs. Steinberger

It started when Badger reacted to a video from Josh Steinberger discussing a common scenario in storm restoration:

  • A roof has minor damage
  • The shingle is discontinued
  • The carrier approves full replacement because a matching repair isn’t possible

Badger’s response was blunt:

“I’ve never seen a policy that says this. Show me the language.”

From Badger’s perspective, this looks like:

  • At best, taking advantage of the system
  • At worst, borderline fraud
  • And a major reason insurers like State Farm are rolling out ‘Hail Focus Initiatives’ to limit claims

His argument is rooted in common sense: If a roof can be repaired and made watertight, why replace the entire system?

Josh’s Argument

Josh Steinberger isn’t arguing emotion—he’s arguing policy interpretation.

His position is simple:

  • If the shingle is discontinued
  • If a repair cannot reasonably match
  • And if the policy covers it (i.e. requires you to restore to pre-loss condition)

…then a repair is not a proper restoration.

Homeowners didn’t pay premiums for years to end up with a mismatched, patchwork roof that:

  • Looks different
  • May violate code
  • Could reduce property value

From a strict policy standpoint, Josh argues that full replacement is justified. 

The Comments

As expected, the comments were split right down the middle.

One adjuster summed up the frustration like this: “One damaged, discontinued shingle and roofers want $60,000.”

But another fired right back:  “What do you suggest if no material exists to perform the repair in compliance with building code?”

And that’s where this debate really lives.

The Real Issue: Discontinuation

Let’s be clear, this argument isn’t actually about one or two shingles. It’s about discontinued materials.

When manufacturers stop producing a shingle, contractors and carriers are left with two imperfect options:

  1. Patch the roof with a non-matching product, potentially violating code or policy and lowering the home’s value. 
  2. Replace the entire roof at significantly higher cost, even when damage is minimal. 

At the same time:

  • Yes, insurance fraud exists
  • Yes, bad actors make things worse for everyone
  • Yes, carriers are responding by tightening guidelines

Dmitry’s Take

In the video above, Dmitry shared his reaction to the debate. He said he can see both sides, but to him it’s a common-sense issue. He poses this question: 

If most of us were paying out of pocket for our own buildings, would we replace an entire roof because one shingle was discontinued? Probably not.

In many parts of the world, roofs last decades—sometimes centuries—with repairs, patches, and maintenance. They may not be perfect, but they work. And yet in the U.S., it’s much easier to be generous when someone else is paying.

That doesn’t make Josh wrong. It doesn’t make Badger right. It's a loophole—one that smart contractors and public adjusters know how to use.

But the bigger question is this: what’s good for the claim… versus what’s good for the industry?

If everything becomes a replacement:

  • Carriers tighten coverage
  • Claims become harder to get approved
  • Legitimate, severe losses face more resistance

Is it worth it to push the borderline cases, if it leads to less approvals overall?