HO3 Policy Claim

[djs]

From a carrier's perspective, if the roof was not damaged by a covered loss (such as hail or windstorm), then only the ensuing water damage to the structure should be covered by the policy.

Interesting perspective. My experience is that without a covered loss, the resulting damage is also not covered. On the flip side though, this has always been because of lack of routine maintainance, i.e., the roof is worn out or the roof tiles haven't been maintained and have cracked.

In this case, there was a very recent inspection which didn't show any issues to be taken care of. Due to this, I don't know how the claim would come out, especially since I don't know who the carrier is and I don't know anything about New York.

Dan

 

[FLInsa]

It was actually quite common, and appropriate, in the early part of the 20th century to install a wood shake roof with no plywood underneath. Doing so allows air flow around the shakes so that they can dry following a rain storm, thus extending their life by reducing the accumulation of mold/rot.

From a carrier's perspective, if the roof was not damaged by a covered loss (such as hail or windstorm), then only the ensuing water damage to the structure should be covered by the policy.

Right on. And if the carrier tries to decline the claim, good luck.

 

[brooks]

It's my opinion there would be no coverage for the roof. What was damaged?

For interior damage to be covered you need an "opening" for the water to get in, otherwise, no soap.

 

[Air Jer]

Both DJS and Chubb Marketing have hit home runs! No insurance company is going to replace that whole roof.