Our insured has a HO-5 policy and the date of loss is February 2, 2008. Rain water entered through the roof and damaged the interior. The interior damages have been paid; however, the cause of loss is somewhat of an issue.

Insured's roofer stated that "roof has been destroyed from fire" and needs to be replaced.

Second roofer said there are two causes: (1) improper flashing and (2) the charcoal color release used on the tiles is had a chemical reaction and caused the tiles to decay. With a hole in the tile, the water and UV rays can enter and decay the roofing felt paper. It would be impossible for embers to set on the tile roof and burn a hole through the tile without causing the attic structure to go up in flames.

Third roofer said there are two causes: (1) improperly flashed, improperly sealed due to loose tiles and ridge cap and (2) holes in tiles due to fire-related issues, possibly due to the ash and smoke that can be clearly seen under tiles.

Insured confirms that October 2007 fires did not come near her house. She said the October 2003 fires came up to her property line.

We did not insure the house in 2003 and the statute has tolled, so she cannot go back and make a claim with the previous carrier.

What is your opinion regarding coverage for the roof?

California Subscriber

Concrete roofs are class A fire rated and are noncombustible. Concrete does not break down until it is exposed to thousands of degrees Fahrenheit which are more than the typical house fire, so it's highly unlikely that a few embers on the roof caused the concrete tiles to burn. The composition of concrete is such that wet concrete can cause serious chemical burns if in contact with the skin, but the concrete itself doesn't burn. So it's possible for a chemical reaction to occur with the presence of another substance. Acids can deteriorate concrete and chemical deicers and some alkalis can cause a reaction that causes cracking or spalling, so it's more likely that a chemical reaction caused the damage to the roof tiles than fire, although not being a chemist or engineer I can't make a definitive statement on that for you.

 On to the policy, deterioration and latent defect are excluded from coverage and the exception to that exclusion involves accidental discharge from a plumbing, heating, etc. device. Faulty, inadequate or defective design, workmanship, construction, etc. are also excluded, and that is what you have, faulty construction. You have two roofers indicating faulty flashing as contributing to the damage and one saying there is chemical damage while the other two maintain there is fire damage. Either way, you have faulty workmanship for the installation of the flashing so the damage from that is excluded. You have to make a determination as to whether or not the other damage to the roof was fire-related or a chemical reaction, and that's a matter of fact that I can't determine. If there is fire damage, that would be covered. Any damage from the chemicals to color the concrete would be a latent defect and excluded. You might need to have an independent lab analyze the deteriorated tiles to make that determination. You are correct in paying the interior loss; ensuing loss is covered.

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis