Can you get a new roof if the peril created roof damage doesn’t trigger the “25% rule?”
If you have a replacement cost policy with law and ordinance coverage, you may have a claim for roof replacement even if the peril created damage did not damage 25% of your roof to initially trigger the Florida Building Code’s replacement requirement (see my previous blog posts explaining the “25% Rule,” Law and Ordinance coverage, Actual Cash Value, and Replacement Cost coverage). If physical damage is incurred in making repairs to the peril created damage, then that should also be covered in the adjustment of the claim pursuant to Section 626.9744, Florida Statutes, which states as follows:
Claim Settlement practices related to property insurance. – Unless otherwise provided by the policy, when a homeowner’s insurance policy provides for the adjustment and settlement of first-party losses based on repair or replacement cost, the following requirements apply:
(1) When a loss requires repair or replacement of an item or part, any physical damage incurred in making such repair or replacement which is covered and not otherwise excluded by the policy shall be included in the loss to the extent of any applicable limits. The insured may not be required to pay for betterment required by ordinance or code except for the applicable deductible, unless specifically excluded or limited by the policy.
(2) When a loss requires replacement of items and the items do not match in quality, color, or size, the insurer shall make reasonable repairs of replacement of items in adjoining areas. In determine the extent of the repairs or replacement of items in adjoining areas, the insurer may consider the cost of repairing or replacing the undamaged portions of the property, the degree of uniformity that can be achieved without such costs, the remaining useful life of the undamaged portion, and other relevant factors.
(3) This section shall not be construed to make the insurer a warrantor of the repairs made pursuant to this section.
(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or preclude enforcement of policy provisions relating to settlement disputes.
(Emphasis added).
Furthermore, if repairs to the peril created damage do not match in quality, color, or size, to the adjoining shingles or tiles for example (since this is a roof blog), then replacement of the adjoining materials to match should be covered as well pursuant to subsection (2) above.
The above analysis is of course contingent on policy language, however, this statute has seemingly been forgotten by some adjusters and is obviously crucial authority for the adjustment of roof claims where damage or matching issues are unavoidable.
This blog discusses general scenarios, and each policy, claim, and case are different in their own respect. If you have questions about your insurance policy do not hesitate to contact your insurance agent to verify that you’re properly insured. If you need assistance or have questions about an insurance claim, call one of our experienced attorneys for a free consultation.
Jordan Mejeur, Esq.
DISCLAIMER: This website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Please do not act or refrain from acting based on anything you read on this site. Using this site or communicating with Cohen Law Group through this site does not form an attorney/client relationship. This site is legal advertising. Please review the full disclaimer for more information by clicking here.
