We believe that this subsequent loss is a covered loss and would have happened regardless of whether the entire roof had been replaced; however, we are uncertain what effect on coverage for this new loss, if any, is created under the policy since the insured did not replace the entire roof after the first loss.

Our investigation has determined that the damage due to the most recent loss does not overlap with the prior loss. Should it be determined that coverage applies as it normally would regardless of the insured's failure to replace the entire roof as a result of the prior loss, is it appropriate to take 100 percent depreciation for roofing removal, as it was not performed for their previous loss?

California Subscriber

The more recent wind damage would be considered a totally separate loss and claim. Whatever was or was not repaired when the insured accepted ACV for the previous loss would not affect this loss. It would not be appropriate to take 100 percent depreciation for the reason you mention—if the insured chose to accept ACV in lieu of replacement cost, there was no requirement to replace the entire roof after the first loss.