Analysis brought to youby the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority oninsurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&Cindustry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage questionanswered — visit the National Underwriter website, orcontact the editors viaTwitter: @FCSbulletins.

Question: We have a circumstance wherea homeowner was throwing a backyard football party for some ofhis friends. The group brought the insured's big screen televisionoutside for the event. During the festivities, an unexpectedthunderstorm came through with high winds and pouring rain.Everyone, of course, immediately retreated indoors, but somehowforgot to bring in the television.

The television was not blown over by the high winds, but itwas damaged by the rain that accompanied the windstorm.

This is an HO-3 policy. The insurer has denied payment ofthe cost to repair the television, citing the portion of the policyparaphrased below:

“The peril of wind does not include loss to property contained in a building causedby rain, unless the direct force of wind or hail damages thebuilding causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain entersthrough this opening.”

The insurer stated that since television was not “containedinside a building,” that damage from rain would not be covered; itis only covered while inside a structure, and then only if windfirst damaged the structure and created an opening for the rain tocome into the home.

In our argument for coverage, we reasoned that rain was nota named peril under the policy and could not ever be covered unlessit was a part of another named peril under the policy. We opinedthat “rain” was a part of the peril of “wind.”

We stated that we understood that there was a coveragelimitation for personal property damaged by rain whilst inside of abuilding. However, there was no such coverage limitation on rainwhen the personal property was outside.

We are hoping that you can tell us if we are correct.

— Hawaii Subscriber

Answer: You are correct that rain is not anamed peril for personal property, and there is no coverage.However, rain is not part of wind; the two are separateand can happen independently of each other. Had the carrier wantedto cover personal property that got caught in the rain, it wouldhave made rain a named peril.

There is no coverage for this loss.

Related: 7 tips to reduce holiday party liability foremployers

More property damage caused by rain

Question: Our insured has a Cause of Loss – SpecialForm, CP 10 30 04 02. The policyholder sustained damage to aninsured building from heavy rain that caused water to flow from theroof into the interior walls and resulted in damage to the walls aswell as mold inside the walls. There was no other damage to theroof or walls of the building. Will this water damage caused by therain be insured?

— New YorkSubscriber

Answer: The CP 10 30 contains a limitationstating that loss or damage to the interior of any building orstructure caused by or resulting from rain is not covered unlessthe building first sustains damage by a covered cause of loss tothe roof or walls through which the rain enters. In the situationyou describe, there was no damage to the roof or walls. So thewater damage caused by the rain would not be covered.

Related: It's business, it's not personal(property)

Wind-driven rain damage over time

Question: We have an HO 00 03 05 11 with endorsementHO 32 32 06 12, which states that constant or repeated discharge,seepage, or leakage of water is excluded. This paragraph replaces aparagraph that pertained to plumbing.

Repeated wind-driven rain caused hidden damage, namely rot,and water damage to insulation that could not be seen. Would winddriven rain be excluded if it occurred over an 8-year-period butthe insured could not see the damage? Part of the originalcausation may have been improper chimney flashing.

— Texas Subscriber

Answer: While there is an exception formold hidden behind walls, that exceptionapplies only when the water is caused by a plumbing, heating, airconditioning system, sprinkler system, or household appliance, or astorm drain or water, steam/sewer pipes off the premises. Theendorsement removes that and in its place excludes water caused byrepeated seepage or leakage. Wind-driven rain really is notrepeated leakage or seepage, it is forced in by the wind.Wind-driven rain is excluded under the water exclusion. There is nocoverage for this loss.

According to the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, a wood shingleroof like this one photographed at at the Silver Saddle Motel inBoulder, Colo. in 2010, will last up to 30 years underfavorable conditions. (AP Photo/Barry Gutierrez)

Wind loss to personal property

Question: We have a hurricaneclaim and there was no damage to either the exterior orthe interior of our insured's condo unit. However, the insured hada patio set outside, and both the company adjuster and theindependent adjuster are adamant that the furniture carried away bywind is not covered, as the policy language, under the “windstormor hail” coverage, states “this peril does not include loss to theinside of a building or the property contained in a building causedby rain, snow, sleet, sand or dust unless thedirect force of wind or hail damages the building causing anopening in a roof or wall and the rain, snow, sleet, sand or dustenters through this opening.”

We would appreciate your opinion.

Related: 7 parts of your home to check for winter weatherdamage

— South CarolinaSubscriber

Answer: The adjusters are misreading the namedperil. It specifically states that the peril does not include lossto property contained in a building caused by rain, snow, sleet,sand or dust unless the direct force of the wind caused an openingin the roof or wall of the building containing the property. Butthat is not what happened here. First, the property was notcontained in a building; it was outside. And second, the directcause of the loss was wind, not rain, snow, sleet, sand ordust.

There is coverage for the patio set subject, of course, to anyapplicable deductible.

Lifting of shingles causes damage

Question: Citizens Homeowner 3 special form HO-3 0113 section 1-perils insured against, 2, h. WE DO NOT INSURE,HOWEVER, FOR LOSS: Rain, snow, sand to the interior of buildingunless a covered peril first damages the building causing anopening…

Our insured sustained damage to the interior of his home inseveral rooms when a rain storm caused water to intrude into thehouse through the roof and under theshingles.

Citizens denied the claim per the above exclusion.

Related: Here's why some water damage claims aren'tcovered

The roof, at the time of the loss, was in poor condition dueto age. The wind speed at the time of the loss was in excess of 40mph, and we believe that the 40 mph+ wind speed damaged the roof bycausing the shingles to lift, which created enough of an openingfor the rain to enter the house. At the time of inspection, theshingles were flat and there was no evidence of shingle damage tothe naked eye.

Should this loss be covered?

— Florida Subscriber

Answer: You have an issue of fact more so thanpolicy interpretation; if the wind lifted the shingles then indeedthere is coverage for the contents; if the roof just has leaks,then there would be no coverage due to faulty maintenance/wear andtear. An inspector should be able to determine whether or not thesingles would lift in a windstorm.

Analysis brought to youby the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority oninsurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&Cindustry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage questionanswered — visit the National Underwriter website, orcontact the editors viaTwitter: @FCSbulletins.

See also:

Avoid getting blown away by wind damageclaims

What's the effect of extenuating circumstances infiling an insurance