Ohio Subscriber

We agree with the insurer in that there were two losses, not one. Although the contractor recommended that the front door be replaced, there is no indication that the door was damaged by any direct physical cause of loss—a requirement for coverage for the door. It appears that the door might have been improperly installed or negligently maintained, and both of those are excluded causes of loss. However, the policy provides that any loss resulting from one of those is covered unless otherwise excluded. For example, had there been both water damage to the dwelling and water damage to a desk inside the foyer, the water damage to the dwelling would be covered but not the damage to the desk (unless it could be proven that the direct force of the wind caused an opening through which the rain entered). The comment from the first adjuster as to "any further damage" becoming apparent refers to the earlier loss, and the fact that the insured might later see damage from that loss that was not immediately apparent. Although the insurer declined to pay for the door's replacement, the insured certainly could have done so.

Because the second occurrence is distant in time and place from the earlier occurrence, we believe they are two separate occurrences, with two deductibles applying. Of course, if the insured sees damage now (such as floorboards warping) that can be traced to the first storm, then that damage is covered under the first claim. Damage arising from the recent storm will thus be covered as a separate loss.