We think that the proximate cause is snow, whether or not in its crystalline form, and, without an opening in the roof, there is no coverage. What are your thoughts?

Pennsylvania Subscriber

In the opinion of the editors, there is a necessary distinction between rain or snow and the accumulation of water that results from either of these events. The exclusion of loss caused by "rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust" is not synonymous with loss caused by "water, sand, or dust." That is, water may emanate from a number of sources and an accumulation of water is an event totally distinct from either rain or snow. Yet, the exclusion refers only to rain or snow. Other water damage that occurs after the rain or snow has fallen is excluded as flood, surface water, etc., but no exclusion addresses the loss in question.

Further, the cause of loss to which you refer is found in the personal property coverages. Wallpaper, since it is permanently affixed to the wall, is real property and thus covered under coverage A—dwelling. Therefore, coverage exists as it would if the roof were leaking.

 The insured's only avenue to coverage for personal property under the named perils of form HO-3 is by way of "weight of ice, snow or sleet." Theoretically, the weight may have caused enough sag in the roof's structure to permit water to seep under the shingles and down into the structure rather than following the ordinary slope of the roof into the gutters. Of course, there is no covered peril that reaches damage from ice dams. Thus, it is up to the insured to prove the weight of ice and snow theory in order to have coverage. (This incident is a good illustration of the advantage of extending open perils coverage to personal property by way of endorsement HO 15.)