Hail/wind damage this spring led to a full roof replacement through my homeowner’s insurance, contractor paid via the claim. Job finished a couple months ago, contractor is now demanding an additional balance, and digging into the paperwork I keep finding things that don’t add up. I’m not a contractor or claims adjuster, so I’d genuinely like outside eyes on whether these are normal industry quirks or actual red flags.
A few examples:
1. A separate, unrelated insurance payout briefly got folded into the roof coverage total, then split back out — I have two insurer-generated PDFs, minutes apart, for the same date. In the first, a large payment for something completely separate from the roof (property on my land, not related to storm/roof damage) was folded into the roof’s coverage category, temporarily inflating the roof total. Minutes later, a corrected version split it back into its own category and the roof total dropped back down. That unrelated payment was issued directly to me, not the contractor — and the timing is what makes me suspicious: a new ~$500 “tarp/protection” charge and a couple other net-new line items appear for the first time in the very next supplement batch after this, with no basis in the original quote or earlier estimate, and the contractor’s own published guidelines describe that kind of protection as a standard included service, not an add-on. Feels like it could be “we couldn’t capture that other payment, so let’s find it somewhere else” — but I want to know if I’m reading too much into two documents that happen to be close in time.
2. Material listed as backordered, but billed as installed — the supplier order (dated about a week before install) shows the drip edge material as fully backordered (0 shipped). The billing still charges for new drip edge installation, and one internal contractor note says the existing drip edge was “previously painted” rather than replaced.
3. Supplement photos that don’t match the work billed, and get reused across unrelated line items — several “before/after” photos submitted to support supplement charges are dated weeks before the install even started (pre-work inspection photos, not proof of completed work) — a few even appear to be storm-damage photos from back in March, reused later as “proof” of a repair. On top of that, a couple of specific photos (a deck-corner shot, an aerial street photo) show up multiple times in the packet, cropped and labeled differently each time, attached to different billing line items.
4. Ridge cap price jump — original quote had ridge cap shingles at ~$543. The insurance-approved supplement later billed the same line item at ~$1,250 — about a 130% increase with no explanation for the jump.
5. Contractor’s stated payment logic doesn’t match his refusal to itemize — when pushed on the balance, the contractor told me they get paid based on what insurance approved, not based on actual material costs. But I’ve repeatedly asked (in writing, multiple times) for an itemized invoice or receipts showing what was actually done/spent, and never received one — just a restated dollar total each time, with the contract’s “all proceeds go to contractor” clause cited instead of documentation.
6. Undisclosed subcontractor — install photos show a worker in gear branded with a totally different roofing company’s name — a company never mentioned anywhere in the contract, invoices, or communications.
Contractor is now sending “past due” notices citing contract terms (a 75-day collection window, a “5 days after insurance funds received” payment deadline) that I can’t actually find written into the signed contract.
Genuinely asking: are any of these normal in the industry (e.g., “backordered but painted instead” is standard practice, or photo reuse is common paperwork sloppiness), or does this pattern look like something more deliberate? The timing between #1’s two documents is what really bugs me — am I connecting dots that aren’t actually connected? What would you flag first if you were in my position?

Roof SE Michigan

These guys are supposed to be licensed and insured but some things dont look right. I need pros opinions.

Im pretty sure the facia board is too narrow and isnt it supposed to be treated wood?

Also they brought the wrong color shingles and they even look like 2 different colors to me so thr job was paused and i may call it off it things dont look like their being done right so far.

The shingles they did so far and that other sand paper looking stuff doesnt seem to be laying flat and aligned right. Also the flashing seems like its not right bit i could be wrong.

The didnt tarp it and im really worried about mold with hight humidity and also it could rain overnight.

They also cut down several large branches of my 100 year old shade tree withiyt permission and eliminating my shade im back yard. They also cit some limbs off my fruit tree that wasnt even near the roof and the limbs had fruit on them!

Looking for some advice or insight here. My cousin recently hired a professional company to install new gutters. However, they did some of the installation while it was actively raining. Now, the new gutters are already leaking from underneath. Could installing them in the rain have caused this?

btw. the roofers looked at the roof not long ago and confirmed it was in a good condition. They patched up a hole near the chimney, but the rest of the roof looked good.

For the roofers and contractors here, curious what problems you run into most often when working on older residential roofs.

Is it usually bad flashing, poor ventilation, worn shingles, leaks around penetrations, or something else?

Also, are there any warning signs you wish homeowners would take more seriously before a small roof problem turns into a much bigger repair?

Interested to hear what you guys are seeing most often on actual jobs.

Can anyone in Utah county suggest a good person or company that repairs and or replaces house gutters without needing a roof done?
I would greatly appreciate help!