On an HO 00 03 10 00, a lady had literally just purchased one of those freestanding basketball goals to put in their driveway and the kids began playing with it for the first time.  She came home to a bunch of damage to the lightweight concrete roof tiles on the garage that is located behind the portable basketball goal.

The claim is being denied for wear & tear, but I feel like if it was literally the first instance of it occurring, even if there were multiple impacts from the basketball, it was a child that was doing it and should likely be covered. Do you feel as though there would be covered under this circumstance?

If it had been something that was ongoing and the parent should have likely known that their kids had been hitting the garage, would your opinion change?