The loss would not be covered. The loss was due to the faulty workmanship of the roofer. It does not really matter that the tenant did not instigate the work or had no knowledge of it, it still falls within the wording of the faulty workmanship exclusion: "we will not pay for damage caused by or resulting from…faulty…workmanship." The limitation for interior damage caused by rain, snow, ice, sleet, sand, or dust could also apply in that damage caused by dust to personal property is not covered unless the building first sustains damage by a covered cause of loss to its roof or walls. The roofers tearing away the roof in order to make repairs would not be considered damage, so this limitation could apply.

This is an unfortunate situation in which it seems that there should be coverage as the tenant was basically an innocent bystanders, but by the terms of the policy, there is no coverage. It is a situation where apparently the landlord/roofer is responsible for making the tenant whole.