I am seeking interpretation on a coverage question related to a Nationwide Homeowner Policy (form H 00 03 07 16). The policy includes an ensuing loss provision under Section I — Perils Insured Against, which states: "Under 2.b. and c. above, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered."

Scenario:
A covered peril causes direct physical damage to an exterior building material on the dwelling.
The direct hail damage is covered, subject to deductibles and limits.
During spot repair attempts, it's discovered that the direct replacement material has been discontinued, with no reasonable match available for color or dimension, making spot repairs impossible.
As a result, a full section replacement would be needed to achieve a reasonable match.

"But for" the covered damage, no repair would be necessary.
The policy excludes mismatches under exclusions 2.c.(6)(k) and 2.c.(6)(l):
(k) Mismatch of color between undamaged material and new material used to replace old, weathered or oxidized damaged material; and
(l) Mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material due to outdated, obsolete or discontinued products.

Question:
Does the ensuing loss provision apply in this scenario to cover the cost of full section replacement (beyond the directly- damaged portions) as an "ensuing loss" stemming from the covered hail peril? Specifically:

Is the inability to match discontinued materials considered a distinct "ensuing loss" that is not precluded by the mismatch exclusions due to color mismatch from weathering/oxidation under 2.c.(6)(k) or discontinuation under 2.c.(6)(l))?
Or is this mismatch directly tied to the exclusion, preventing coverage for broader repairs under the ensuing loss clause?
For reference, the policy is attached (highlights on pg.14-16).

Colorado Subscriber

The mismatch is directly tied to the exclusion and, as such, is not covered. It is not ensuing to the loss- the discoloration occurred before the loss. While the discoloration wasn't an issue before the loss as all the property was the same age, it became an issue after the loss, but only because matching property isn't available. But this is exactly why the exclusion was created - to disallow coverage when replacement property after a loss doesn't match the existing property. We see no coverage in this situation.