Composite case study

Meridian Exteriors / Storm-restoration roofing

A CRM built around the insurance claim, not the sales call

A 25-person roofer replaced an ignored generic CRM with a claim-shaped workflow that made stalled files, payment steps, and commission changes visible.

Illustrative candid phone photo of a roofing office team reviewing claims around a busy desk

The business

A concise operating snapshot before the implementation started.

Annual sales
About $6 million
Team
25 people
Annual volume
A little over 400 jobs
Average job
About $14,000

Where the workflow broke

Every job moved through nine insurance-claim stages, any one of which could quietly stall. Reconstructing the prior year showed roughly one in five claims had sat for more than 30 days without action. The owner's estimate was 8 to 12 jobs lost each season, putting $110,000 to $170,000 a year at risk.

The team also calculated split commissions by hand from estimates rather than collected cash. Supplements and short payments changed the math later, creating monthly disputes. JobNimbus cost about $24,000 a year, but half the team had stopped using it because its stages did not match the claim process.

What we built

The CRM was designed around the insurance claim because the claim, not the sales call, determined how work and cash moved through the business.

  1. Capture leads from the truck

    Let canvassers log an address, damage photo, and storm-date tag from a phone in under a minute, grouped by hail event.

  2. Match the nine-stage claim pipeline

    Give every stage its own required fields and timing rules, so the admin starts each morning with the files that have gone quiet.

  3. Calculate commissions from collected cash

    Use QuickBooks receipts, including late supplements and depreciation payments, while showing canvassers and reps why a number changed.

  4. Connect the critical calendar

    Sync adjuster meetings with Google Calendar because a missed adjuster meeting is the company's most expensive no-show.

  5. Give the owner one operating view

    Show jobs by stage, aged claims, expected cash, and held-back depreciation without replacing EagleView, Xactimate, material ordering, or payroll.

How it was checked

Codex independently recalculated commissions for roughly 420 prior-year jobs from the specification and QuickBooks data. It separated legitimate owner overrides from one real bug: supplements collected after the final invoice was marked paid were not flowing into the canvasser's split. It also surfaced 11 historical jobs where the hand calculation had underpaid someone.

What stayed human

People still own inspections, estimates, claim decisions, customer communication, exceptions, commission overrides, and payroll. The CRM makes a silent file visible and explains calculations, but it does not make those business decisions.

The engagement

Timeline
Ten weeks
Investment
$41,000
Context
The owner's estimate put the jobs lost to silent stalls at more than $110,000 a year. JobNimbus had cost about $24,000 a year.

Measured results

One storm season later

Claims stalled more than 30 days
BeforeRoughly 1 in 5, reconstructed
After1 in 20
Jobs lost to silent stalls per season
Before8 to 12, owner's estimate
After2
Build-to-final-payment cycle
Before74 days average
After52 days average
Commission disputes
BeforeMonthly, owner-mediated
AfterOne since launch
Software cost
BeforeAbout $24,000 a year
AfterAbout $2,400 a year

The cycle-time improvement came mainly from the back half of the claim. Supplements and final invoices went out sooner, and the held-back depreciation payment arrived about three weeks sooner on average.

Why it held up

The software matched Meridian's ten-year claim process instead of forcing the team into a generic sales pipeline. Stage-specific alerts made silent files loud, and a full-year commission check gave the field team a reason to trust the numbers.

Have a workflow with the same kind of friction?

We can map the real process, identify the review points, and agree on what evidence should count.

Discuss a similar workflow