Therefore, as I see it, the limitations do not apply because the building has sustained damage from a covered cause of loss.

Your opinion, please.

Florida Subscriber

The "faulty or defective workmanship or maintenance" line of exclusions are not applicable, inasmuch as the work itself was not faulty or defective, and did not cause the damage. The sudden storm caused the damage.

The limitation poses the more problematic question. Additionally, what legal precedent that is available is not friendly to the insured.

As you are aware, there is no coverage for loss to the interior of an insured building or for contents resulting from rain unless the building first sustains damage by a covered cause of loss to its roof through which the rain enters.

We are aware of losses wherein a temporary roof (i.e., a tarp or other covering) placed over the opening in the roof rips, allowing damage to the interior. We have stated that such losses are covered, as the tarp or covering can be said to be the "roof" at the time of loss, and that the insured is entitled to the most favorable reasonable common dictionary meaning of any word left undefined in the insurance policy. However, courts have gone both ways on this issue (see question and answer, above).

Yours is a different situation. The roof was intentionally removed in order that it be replaced. For coverage to apply, the roof would first have to be "damaged" by a covered cause of loss, which, as you rightly state, in a special causes of loss form is any cause that is not specifically reached by an exclusion.

Does the removal of a roof to replace it constitute "damage" to the roof for policy purposes? Webster's definition of damage may fit, in that the dictionary defines "damage" as "to injure physically" without reference to intentional or non-intentional acts. The logic outlined in your question regarding this issue makes sense, or at least gives a lawyer arguing your insured's case room to maneuver.

One of the editors is of the opinion that the intentional removing of the roof takes the loss outside of the "fortuitous" category and makes loss inevitable, and thus uninsurable (i.e., take a roof off a building and loss will eventually occur by rain). Unfortunately for your insured, at least one court (and that court sitting in Florida ) has accepted this approach. In New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Carter, 359 So.2d 52 (Fla. 1978), the judge ruled: "The homeowners policy, which provided coverage for unscheduled personal property damage caused by windstorm or hail but which specifically excluded damage by rain unless rain entered opening in roof created by wind or hail, did not cover damage to homeowner's unscheduled personal property caused by rain leaking through roof solely because in re-roofing they had removed protective covering of shingles." Although the wording of the homeowners and commercial property policies are not identical, the facts are similar.

In the end, this may be a situation that will need a Florida lawyer to assist your insured in coming to terms with the carrier. Since there is no unanimous agreement on this situation, that might indicate a policy ambiguity, which would be resolved by a court in favor of the insured.

Finally, we have two other thoughts on the issue. Because the weather in your area is such that these unexpected storms do arise and such losses do occur, and that, as you state, other carriers do pay these claims, a court in your state may find that the industry custom in your jurisdiction is such that such losses are covered. Additionally, the insurer's adoption of a "no coverage" position leaves the insured in the situation of having the interior and contents potentially covered if the roof is allowed to deteriorate to where it can be more easily damaged by a storm, but not if the insured takes measures to maintain it. This creates a morale hazard. As insurance contemplates the insured maintaining insured property, it seems inequitable that a loss occurring during maintenance would fall outside of the coverage grant.