The roof on this home is being replaced due to damages from a covered peril (windstorm/hail). During restoration the contractor discovers that the roof sheathing is made up of 1″x6″ wood planks that would normally be acceptable in this jurisdiction if the gaps between the planks were within the acceptable range of the shingle manufacturer, which they are not. This causes a non-nailable surface situation where the roof sheathing must be replaced with either planks with smaller gaps, or plywood/OSB panels. During the replacement of the roof sheathing the contractor discovers a ridge board in the site-built truss system that has failed. This section of ridge board must be replaced, along with the rafters attached to it, in order for the remaining roof sheathing to be installed over a safe, sound structure. It is not known whether this ridge board was damaged due to storm-related or other forces, or if it was damaged during the reroof process. The reroof can't be completed until these components are fixed. Currently, there is no specific building code that is triggering either of these issues to be addressed independently of the reroof, but they both directly affect the reroof process.
Questions: Are the costs to remedy these two situations covered within the Dwelling Replacement Cost limits for the windstorm/hail claim or would they go into the Building Code/LO coverage box? Must the roof sheathing and ridge board be damaged by windstorm/hail (as in ADPL) in addition to the roof covering in order to be covered at all?
Indiana Subscriber
This is a situation we are running into more frequently, and policy language is important. You have two possible exclusions that could come into play – faulty construction/workmanship in the gaps not being in the acceptable range, and the failed ridge board which could be excluded as wear and tear.
In some forms, the language for wear and tear is preceded by the anticoncurrent causation language, which states that certain losses are excluded regardless of whether any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss is covered. In those policies, an insurer could reasonably exclude the ridge board as wear and tear. Having said that, if it is not known whether or know the board was damaged from the storm, then the insured should get the benefit of the doubt and it should be covered.
In other policies though, the wear and tear exclusion is not behind the anticoncurrent causation language. In those instances, our stance is that the insured had no way of knowing that the property was worn and but for the loss would not have filed a claim for that damage. Therefore, since it is necessary to make repairs to unexposed property to repair the damage, that faulty property should be repaired as well.
In order for ordinance or law coverage to apply, an ordinance or law must be enforced by the governing organization. If that is the case then yes, the replacement of the sheathing would fall under ordinance or law.
We are looking at the standard ISO forms and are aware that the Allstate policies tend to be more restrictive. We're happy to look at the form if you want us to take a look, just send it to me.