I am handling a claim for the insured on an open perils homeowners policy with an endorsement that covers code upgrade/enforcement. The covered peril is fire. Four roof trusses were damaged by the fire and need to be replaced. The remaining trusses need to be replaced because they do not comply with the current building code. The home was built in the 1960s and the insured is not the original owner.

The insurance company is trying to get out of paying under the code coverage by asserting the trusses did not meet the building code in the 1960s and are thus not covered based on the faulty, inadequate methods of construction exclusion. This position is based purely on speculation and conjecture as there is no reason to believe this house was not originally built to code. In fact the opposite is true as I would expect this house to have had to been built to code in order for the original contractor to obtain a certificate of occupancy. The insurance company has offered no evidence to support its position; they simply made an unsupported allegation and denied coverage. My question is, in taking this position isn't the burden of proving these trusses did not meet code at the time of the original construction on the insurance company? And, if the insurance company cannot provide documented proof that these trusses did not meet code when the house was originally constructed then are they not obligated to pay to replace these trusses under the code coverage? Please give me your opinion.

Kentucky Subscriber