Fidelity Roof reviews

Kenneth T. called Fidelity in late 2014 about a $X,000? (original didn’t state cost) roof concern at his Petaluma home; the day after, Project Manager Doug climbed onto the roof, photographed the chimney saddle and other trouble spots, and produced a detailed report that arrived by email the same week with a hard copy to follow. He juggled scheduling and funding delays with patient efficiency, and when the crew of two finally showed up they finished the repairs in three days—just ahead of Northern California’s big December storms—and the roof passed that first real rain test without issue. The combination of prompt on-site assessment, photographed documentation, and guaranteed workmanship put Fidelity on his short list of trusted contractors. Four years later, in November 2018, side-wall leaks proved Doug right about the gutters. One email reopened the file; Doug remembered the previous work, returned for a careful estimate and contract (electronic and hard copy within three days), and even sent an original color chart to avoid printer-color mismatches while the homeowner confirmed materials. Doug kept the homeowner updated during fabrication, and one month after that initial 2018

Hayden J. hired Chip Upshaw’s family-run crew to replace a flat roof on his building—choosing a higher-quality IB roofing membrane instead of the typical tar-and-gravel finish. He shopped three bids and Chip’s team came in with the best price, so he went with them. The job finished ahead of the five-year mark this coming summer, and the roof has shown no problems in that time. A few early communication snafus—largely blamed on a tenant acting like the owner—almost dropped his rating to four stars, but Chip personally stepped in, tracked down a missing roof vent, tightened a few floating screws on the flashing and corrected one other small issue he could barely remember. In the end he ended up with a durable roof and an owner who returned to fix post-install issues promptly—what stuck with him was that the company stood behind the work long after the crew left.

John L. had a persistent roof leak and called Fidelity Roof to investigate. Weston from the company dispatched two technicians who spent about an hour at the house and charged roughly $400, but they couldn't pinpoint the leak. They recommended breaking out stucco and installing new saddles—a repair plan that would top $6,000 and came without any guarantee. He pursued a second opinion; another roofing crew located the actual source, repaired it for under $500, and tested the roof with no further leaks. The striking contrast: a short, costly visit that offered an expensive, uncertain fix versus a different crew that found and fixed the problem for far less.

Eric L. hired Fidelity to install a large solar array—over 30 panels—on his roof and to handle ongoing roof repairs over several years. He ended up with crews led by Chip, the VP, and Doug, who oversees the teams, and found them consistently prompt, responsive and professional. For the three years since the job was done, Fidelity has routinely come by to inspect the roof and gutters whenever downspouts clogged or minor leaks showed up, and those checks often happened the same day—even during the busy rainy season. That steady, hands-on follow-up mattered to him because he didn’t want inexperienced people working on his roof; Fidelity’s teams combined solar installation with genuine roofing know-how. The detail that sticks: near-immediate visits to clear clogs and check seams after the install, year after year.

Douglas has hired Fidelity Roof for projects stretching back to 1993, and his most recent job—re-roofing a commercial building in San Francisco—finished beautifully: on time, on budget, tidy, and executed with meticulous attention to detail. His relationship with the company began with a 65,000 sq. ft. warehouse in Alameda and has since included many commercial and residential roofs in a range of systems—shingle, metal standing seam, TPO, built-up, and clay mission tile. Early work involved Monty Upshaw; later, Monty’s son Chip took over and has personally overseen every project since. Whenever a problem surfaced over the years, Douglas picked up the phone, called Chip, and the matter was handled promptly and professionally. He doubts a recent complaint about a gutter dropping into someone’s yard reflects typical Fidelity workmanship—suggesting the gutter may already have been failing—and notes the crew member on that job was trying to remedy the issue. Douglas hasn’t used Fidelity’s solar services yet but plans to when the opportunity arises, expecting the same level of care. After hiring many other roofers, he still returns to Fidelity because he hasn’t found another company that

John M. hired Fidelity Roof for a new roof and experienced significant interior damage when installers literally stepped through the ceiling wallboard. The crew promised in person that they would fix the damage, but days later he received a company letter calling the harm “consequential damage” from normal construction activity and denying negligence. He felt blindsided by the switch from an on-site assurance to a written refusal and warns others to be cautious—especially given the image of workers walking through a damaged ceiling.

Steve G. finally had a simple home repair handled without the usual runaround. He got a prompt response from Fidelity: Doug came out, climbed the ladder and took plenty of photos—because the homeowner refused to climb—then walked him through the issue, pointed out a couple of unforeseen problems, and left a clear, reasonable quote. Eduardo and his crew showed up on the scheduled day and completed the job in about four hours, efficient and tidy. What stuck with him was the combination of Doug’s rooftop documentation and a finished repair in under half a day.

Vivien needed routine maintenance on her solar system and turned to Fidelity. The team followed through on their promise, completed the upkeep as expected, and charged a fair price. She felt relieved to have found a dependable vendor and plans to keep them as her contact for future maintenance.

Marie met with Kyle for an appointment about a roofing estimate for her multifamily building, and the initial meeting went smoothly. Kyle assured her an estimate was in progress, so she followed up several times by email — but the estimate never arrived. The interaction ended with no estimate, no follow-up and no further communication, leaving her still waiting for the promised numbers.