Reroofing kickout flashing

Voting section related to Minnesota building codes.

Can you require kick out flashing on a reroof permit?

Poll ended at Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:55 pm

Total votes : 24

Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby forumadmin » Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:32 am

In IRC Chapter 903 Roof Assemblies, Section 1309.903.2.2 Kick out flashing / Diverter gives specific requirements for this type of flashing. Section R907 Reroofing does not.

Can you require kick out flashing on a reroof permit?
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:02 am

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby Steve Nelson » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:34 am

Steve Nelson
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby RDavidson » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:54 am

If I read R907.1 Reroofing, it says that “Materials and methods of application used for re-covering or replacing an existing roof covering shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 9.” Requirements for “roof coverings” are found in “Section R905 Requirements for Roof Coverings”. There are no requirements in R905 for “kick out flashing”. Furthermore, R907.5 permits the reuse of flashing materials, presumably even if they don’t meet current standards, so one could argue that all existing flashing materials and methods, unless deteriorated, are acceptable.

However, if one were to take a very broad view of the code and presume that kick out flashing was required; one needs to consider the exterior finish on the home. Vinyl siding can become brittle and crack. Colors of replacement products don’t match existing materials. Stucco can crack and require an additional trade to repair or install kick out flashing. Removal of almost any siding material or attempting to cut the finish in place risks unexpected damage that can be difficult or impossible to satisfactorily repair. In my opinion, installation of kick out flashing should be left almost entirely to new home construction.
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:36 pm

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby JimW » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:58 am

Personal I say yes. There are cases where you can not require it with out damaging the home i.e. stucco. But in many places it only makes sense to require it.

I do know that that state has a interp out saying it is ony required on a new home and not on a reroof or when the siding is done.

I'm glad to see the state is willing to help many of us construction workers still make a good living fixing these home because of the rot from the water damage.

My question is do I need a permit for this since it's a repair? LOL :lol:
Jim W
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: St Paul

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby Patrick Parsley » Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:46 am

I do not agree with Mr Davidson. (of course this is no surprise!) 907.1 directs the reader to the entire chapter 9 for guidance on the installation and not exclusively to section 905 for roof coverings. IE-It includes "materials" in the charging statement and that is section 904.
Further, section 903 is not written exclusively for new assemblies and should therefore apply to all permitted work.
If I were going to neglect the kick-out flashing I might try to hang my hat on 907.6 which is specifically for flashings. However if the instructions refernce compliance to local codes, the kick out is required.
We do require the installation as it is proven to be a major problem when omitted.
Patrick Parsley
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:06 pm
Location: City of Fairmont

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby sballer » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:30 pm

MN DOLI settled this one for us...

Division Opinion
Inquiry: #2008-11
Subject: Kick-out flashing; residing, reroofing
Code: 2006 International Residential Code
2007 Minnesota State Building Code chapter 1309
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:08 pm

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby C.Block » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:36 pm

Reroof - No

Reside - Yes
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:02 am

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby Paul Schoenecker » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:05 pm

I would like to ask this question. What are we trying to accomplish? Moisture intrusion is a relatively new term, I'm not sure from where, has caused millions of dollars in local damage, loss of insurance coverage for many contractors, bankruptcy for well established contractors and almost a complete loss of one of our most honorable trades, Stucco. Moisture intrusion damage is not limited to stucco installations but occurs in all exterior cladding types and styles. In virtually every case where some form of kickout or sealant or other means of diverting water is missing at that roof/wall intersection there is significant damage. To ignore this is irresponsible. We can debate for days on end about how we got to this point but here we are.

The term "kickout flashing" is also a relatively new term. I will give credit for this term to Nick Wojtowitz from Scandia Stucco and Bob Ebenstiener from Kootenia Homes. Two brilliant hard working men whose livelihoods were extensively damaged by things that none of us at the time, including Codes and Standards, quite understood. A form of "kickout flashing" has been required since the 1973 UBC was published. It simply stated that for roofing, flashing is required at the juncture of the roof and vertical surfaces and for siding, exterior openings exposed to the weather shall be flashed in such a manner as to make them weatherproof. Pretty good wording I think. It has stood the test of time and is still in some form or another included in today’s code.

One setback that I see in the opinions here in this forum and also with siders and roofers is the idea that kickout flashing is a roofer's responsibility or kickout flashing is a sider's responsibility. We have to be able to look beyond trade lines and correct a situation that is today, destroying that building. Assigning this requirement to a particular trade group, roofers or siders, is not our responsibility. Our responsibility is to verify that flashings are installed in a manner that prevents moisture from entering the wall and roof through joints and so on. So, again, what are we trying to accomplish? Keep the water out of the building. Allowing the building to leak and to continue leaking is simply unacceptable.

The DOLI opinion 2008-11, the fact that kickout flashing is not listed as a requirement in the code for re-roofing does not negate the fact that the code has always required flashing to prevent moisture from entering the building.

The answer to the question is indeed “Yes”. Kickout flashing is required for re-roofing.
Paul Schoenecker
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:52 pm
Location: Woodbury

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby mkaehler » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:45 am

We also require a form of kick-out flashing for both re-side and re-roof. We don't require anyone to remove existing siding to install this flashing, we require a "divertion device" to be install tight against the wall and back-chaulked.

It diverts the water away from the building, nobody gets hurt, and I feel we tried to fix a problem we all know is there.
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:04 pm

Re: Reroofing kickout flashing

Postby mikeselon » Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:00 am

I totally agree with Paul of Woodbury. He stated it as well as I could have stated it myself. It just makes sense to provide the means to keep water out of the house.
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:30 pm
Location: City of Bloomington

Return to November 2008 Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest