It seems the adjuster is taking a harsh position in interpreting either of these exclusions as applying to this loss. The settling and cracking exclusion appears in the same context with exclusions such as wear and tear, rust, corrosion, etc.; things that are gradual over time and are more or less inevitable, and pollution and animal damage, items that in general can be avoided with reasonably good operating methods. It is possible that the language of this exclusion, taken outside the context of the intent of the coverage to pay for all manner of losses caused by sudden, accidental, and unforeseeable events, can be read as applying to this loss. But the same could be said if the building walls were cracked by the force of a nearby explosion.

To determine whether a particular loss is covered or subject to one of the exclusions, it is necessary to look at the cause of the loss, not at its consequence. In this case, the cause of the loss—an abnormal temperature pattern of sudden changes from bitter cold to warm to bitter cold to warm, producing unusual stress of sudden expansion and contraction of the roof already made quite brittle by the prolonged cold—is not excluded. So the resulting damage to the roof should be considered as covered.

Likewise, the interior building damage and damage to contents can be seen as caused by water damage of a kind that is not within the scope of water exclusion 1.g, "water…seeping through doors, windows or other openings."  Further, the personal property temperature exclusion is aimed at property subject to spoilage or deterioration if exposed to adverse temperature. It is not intended to apply to override what is a simple and straightforward claim for insured water damage.