We agree that ice damming is not covered under HO-2, but believe that water damage resulting from the peril of the weight of ice, snow, and sleet should be covered.

In support of our position, we offer two points:

First, the peril states that we cover “weight of ice, snow, or sleet that causes damage to a building or property contained in the building.” The weight is the proximate cause of the damage, and may not be the only cause. If the weight were the only covered cause, the policy would state “weight of ice, snow, or sleet that damages a building.” However, since the policy language states that the weight causes the damage, the intent is clearly that it is the proximate cause and not the only cause.

Secondly, to apply the reasoning currently being taken on this peril would require that it also apply to all other perils. For instance, if lightning struck during a storm causing a hole in the roof, the resulting water damage from rain would not be covered. Or if a tree fell on a house causing a hole in the structure resulting damage from rain would be excluded. The same scenario would be true for aircraft, explosion, and vehicle perils. I do not think this is the intent of the policy.

Pennsylvania Subscriber

A

You are correct in your interpretation of the HO-2 peril covering weight of ice and snow. The proximate cause of the loss was the weight of the snow. Any damage flowing from that cause is covered.