Coverage for damage resulting from faulty workmanship

Coverage Q&A: Sometimes there are exceptions when an excluded loss and covered loss occur at the same time.

This week’s question addresses faulty workmanship from a roofer and ensuing losses. (Photo: Shutterstock)

Every claim is different, and some insurance policies can be difficult to interpret for unique situations. FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation, the recognized authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry, makes it simple to find credible answers to your complicated coverage questions. Analysis brought to you by our FC&S experts. 

Editor’s Note: Anti-concurrent causation language ensures that excluded losses aren’t inadvertently covered when a covered loss occurs at the same time or in sequence with the excluded loss. However, certain subsequent losses may be an exception. These are generally exceptions for ensuing losses, losses indirectly caused by the excluded peril where an exception may be made for specific losses. For example, while various types of water losses are excluded, there is an exception for the direct loss by fire, explosion or theft that results from those excluded water losses. This week we have a similar situation.

Question: We have a claim involving damage to a standing seam roof that is 20+ years old. The initial damage was caused by faulty workmanship that contributed to later wind damage, which resulted in water damage to the interior of the building. Our engineer inspected the roof and determined that the roofer who installed the roof used the incorrect sized screws to fasten the seams. There was also evidence of inadequate flashing.

The policy excludes coverage for faulty workmanship, but the resulting water damage appears to be covered, as we can pinpoint an occurrence date that coincides with the wind. It’s 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 different 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 

Answer: To learn the answer to this week’s coverage Q&A, please log into your FC&S Expert Coverage Interpretation account.

Related:

Recommended Stories