Warranty Wars
How to Protect Yourself in the Age of System Specifiers & AI Inspections
by Trent Cotney, Partner, Adams & Reese, LLP
(Editor’s Note: Trent Cotney, partner at Adams & Reese, LLP, is dedicated to representing the roofing and construction industries. Cotney is General Counsel for the Western States Roofing Contractors Association and several other industry associations. For more information, contact Cotney at (866) 303-5868 or go to www.adamsandreese.com.)
For roofing contractors across the West, warranty disputes are becoming one of the most unpredictable and frustrating parts of doing business. The problem isn’t just warranty fine print anymore; it’s the new layer of technology, data, and third-party inspections that determine whether a project passes or fails long before the roof has been tested by time.
Manufacturers and insurers are increasingly turning to AI-driven inspection systems, aerial imagery, and photo documentation software to evaluate installations. In theory, this should make the process faster and more objective. In reality, it often leaves contractors stuck in the middle between manufacturer warranty requirements, client expectations, and what a digital algorithm thinks is acceptable workmanship.
These new inspection systems rely on detailed photo submissions, drone captures, or 3D scans uploaded to a manufacturer’s portal. Artificial intelligence then flags any defects based on pattern recognition, such as missing fasteners, inconsistent shingle alignment, or nonstandard flashing details. The issue is that the AI doesn’t always understand context. It can’t tell whether a vent was properly sealed or if a shadow caused an anomaly in the image. As a result, legitimate installations can be flagged as defective, delaying warranty approvals or causing unjust denials.
Contractors who depend on manufacturer certifications or extended warranties for their marketing advantage are particularly vulnerable. If the manufacturer’s system denies a claim, the contractor may be left defending workmanship even when the installation met or exceeded specification. Because the inspection data belongs to the manufacturer or insurer, contractors may not have access to the underlying analysis that led to a rejection.
This shift raises important legal and practical questions. Who owns the data collected during an inspection? If the AI report is wrong, how can a contractor challenge it? Can warranty eligibility be denied based on software errors rather than workmanship? These are no longer theoretical concerns because they are happening now in real projects.
Roofing contractors can take several steps to protect themselves. First, understand every word of the warranty program you are participating in. Many programs now require specific photo documentation, drone imagery, or online submissions within short time windows. Missing a deadline or uploading incomplete files can automatically void coverage. Make sure your field supervisors and project managers are trained in the exact submission protocol, not just the installation standard.
Second, insist on transparency when dealing with digital inspection systems. Contractors should have the right to review any images, data, or AI-generated reports used in warranty or insurance decisions. Where possible, include language in agreements or purchase orders that require the manufacturer to share inspection results before any final warranty determination. This can prevent blind denials based on faulty or incomplete data.
Third, document everything yourself. Even if the manufacturer conducts its own drone or AI inspection, maintain your own record of detailed, time-stamped photos showing every phase of installation. Keep closeout documentation, daily logs, and weather data organized and accessible. If a warranty claim ever becomes a dispute, this independent evidence can make the difference between coverage and denial.
Fourth, make sure your contracts clearly define what constitutes acceptance. Many contractors install according to manufacturer specifications, only to face disputes later when an AI report contradicts those specs. Include language that limits warranty obligations to compliance with published manufacturer installation standards and not with post-installation digital analysis. This reinforces that the benchmark is the physical standard, not an algorithm’s interpretation of it.
Contractors should also prepare for changes in how warranties are sold and enforced. Many manufacturers offer system warranties that include both materials and labor under their umbrella, but this consolidation can blur liability lines. If a defect arises, the manufacturer may argue it is a workmanship issue while the contractor may argue it is a materials issue. The involvement of AI-driven inspections adds another layer of ambiguity. The clearer your documentation and the more explicit your contract terms, the better positioned you’ll be to defend your work.
Looking forward, industry groups and trade associations will need to push for consistent standards governing digital inspections and warranty enforcement. Transparency, accuracy, and accountability must remain central principles, even as technology evolves. Otherwise, contractors risk being held to automated interpretations that lack nuance or human judgment.
Roofing contractors have always adapted to new materials, codes, and inspection methods. The rise of AI in warranty enforcement is simply the next frontier. Those who understand the technology, control their documentation, and strengthen their contracts will not only survive the transition, but they will also gain a competitive edge. In an era where roof inspections can happen by drone, data, or satellite, protecting your work means protecting your information.
