We have a claim involving roof damage, the initial cause is from faulty workmanship that contributed from wind damage to a standing seam roof that is 20 + years old. There is resulting water damage to the interior of the building. Our engineer inspected the roof and determined that the roofer who installed the roof used incorrect sized screws to fasten the seams. There was also evidence of inadequate flashing. We exclude for faulty workmanship. The resulting water damage appears to be covered as we can pinpoint an occurrence date that coincides to wind. Its possible the roof damage could have occurred over time from wind and other natural causes. Would the failed roof system be a result of the concurrent causation of wind? The Town only realized there was an issue due to water seeping through the ceiling. There were at least three or four difference occurrences that resulted in water damage. My thought would be the faulty workmanship would exclude the wind damage to the roof, as the faulty workmanship is the proximate cause???

Vermont Subscriber

While the exclusions portion of the policy has anticoncurrent causation language, the section regarding faulty workmanship, design, specifications, materials and others contains ensuing damage language, which will override the anticoncurrent language.