Because these 'repairs' are structural rather than superficial or incidental to the structure, they must meet current building code(s). An example might be that one could put new shingles on a older roof that was in good condition but did not meet current standards because the shingles are incidental to the actual structure. But one could not remove a non- compliant roof (the structural components) and replace it with the identical, new but still non- compliment roof.
A very simple analogy is: One can replace a fuse in a fuse box that does not meet current code, wired in a manner that does not meet code. But one cannot replace the fuse box with the identical fuse box because the fuse box would be considered a main part of the electrical system of the building, while the fuse was incidental to the fuse box.
The problem with this particular building goes like this: the roof is 'toast' but a new roof cannot be placed on the short (46") sidewalls because there is nothing there to tie the walls together (like joists), which brings us down to the floor. But that too is a problem because this building uses balloon construction so there is no mechanical 'shelf' to build a floor on top of. <sigh> It does look like there is a purlin near, perhaps close enough to, the original second floor floor but we will not know if that is structurally able to support a new wall and roof until the second floor is gutted and we can look at the structural components. Now this kicks open the proverbial door that may require bracing (read: new walls) all the way down to the foundation, at which point I believe the house would be a write- off. But I believe (hope?) there are sufficient structural members (Easy Boys!) to use as a starting point to build a new floor, sheet it (sub floor) and then go with conventional, modern, or 'western' building techniques from there.
All of which leads us to the joke: 'How do the Soviets deal with a disaster? They cover it up with a catastrophe'. At one point, the Soviet economy was in a shambles and heading toward failure when suddenly, they had that mishap at Chernobyl and everyone forgot about trivial things like the economy. This last winter, I had a nasty ice dam on the front of the house which caused significant damage to the fascia, roof edge and gutter. Then I saw the roof and promptly forgot all about that silly, inconsequential ice dam damage.
Gallows humor- it has to do when that is all there is left, like cheap Scotch.
The insurance issue is completely separate now and will take its own path; I have to get a structurally sound covering on this house before it snows here and 'the wheels of justice turn slowly'. There is always the possibility for an emergency judgement but it is not likely in this case (not life threatening).
Now, all the way back to the drone thing: I think it would be cool (hey, I am old and use the old words- I believe the kids today might say it was 'the shizzle'?) to have time- lapse video of the original structure coming down and the new structure going up. To get that, I would need a drone that could orientate itself in space and return to the same spot over and over again. I am looking into it (along with I- joists, glulams, I-beams, etc.) for this upcoming project. :-)
Brian
BDF - It's my understanding that repairs that return a structure to its previous condition are acceptable / permissible, and that only changes (upgrades, expansion, etc) require new design / engineering.
Do you know why this doesn't seem to apply in your case?
Seems like you might need to file a lawsuit against the insurance company, to jog their memory of how things are supposed to be.