GUIDE 06 · Document damage · California / Colorado research starting points
Separate storm damage from age, deterioration and prior repairs with dated evidence and a qualified inspection. Compare roof coverage endorsements, roof valuation terms and deductibles. A contractor’s repair proposal and an insurer’s coverage decision serve different purposes. Preserve samples safely when appropriate, document slopes and components, and request an itemized explanation for omitted work.
The illusion and the reality
07 · “An old roof cannot have a covered storm loss.”
The illusion: Age is treated as proof that the storm caused no insured damage.
What is real: An older roof can sustain storm damage, while wear, deterioration and prior damage may be excluded. The event’s cause, damaged area and required repair need evidence. A covered loss may still be subject to actual-cash-value settlement, a roof schedule, a special deductible or other endorsements. Age alone answers neither coverage nor payment amount.
What to do: Compare dated pre-loss photos, maintenance history and post-storm observations. Ask which damage is attributed to the storm and which provision controls roof valuation. Separate a causation disagreement from a depreciation or deductible disagreement.
Read the source: ISO HO 00 03 05 11 · Homeowners 3 Special Form · Section I Perils Insured Against: A.1–2; Coverage C Windstorm or Hail; Conditions D.
Browse all 20 illusions · Educational explanation checked October 23, 2026; the state-law material below has its own review scope.
Gather these records
Storm date; pre-loss photos; inspection report; roof age; estimates; material availability.
Put the question in writing
Which observed conditions are accepted as storm damage, which are disputed, and what evidence supports that distinction?
California authorities and application
10 CCR §2695.9(a), (d), (f) — The rule addresses replacement-cost repair consequences and uniform appearance in the damaged area, locally accurate estimates, responses to a competing estimate, and written itemized depreciation.
Scope: The damaged-area matching rule is not an automatic whole-roof replacement promise. Estimate-dispute alternatives and policy conditions matter.
Colorado authorities and application
3 CCR 702-5, Regulation 5-1-14 §§3, 4(A)(1)–(8), 4(B)(3)–(5), 7–8 — The regulation creates a conditional 60-day decision/payment framework after a valid and complete claim. It addresses policy compliance, reasonable disputes, good-faith offers, evidence burdens and catastrophe deviations, plus continuing investigation notices.
Scope: Not 60 days from every first notice of loss. Section 4 defines completion/dispute conditions. Administrative penalties are not an automatic private award.
C.R.S. §10-3-1104(1)(h) — The unfair-claim-practices provisions address misrepresentation, communications, investigation and settlement conduct.
Scope: Regulatory standards are separate from the elements of a private first-party benefits action.
What these authorities do not decide
These claims-handling provisions do not themselves establish storm causation or require an entire roof replacement. Coverage depends on the actual policy and damage evidence.
Source text checked October 21, 2026. Citations link to the issuer’s text or official regulatory publisher. The linked edition and loss/policy dates must be matched; this is a source verification, not a case-specific legal opinion.
Continue with the related issue
03 · Replacement cost, actual cash value and depreciation
10 · Repair estimates, matching and supplements
14 · Adjusters, contractors and public adjusters
All 23 guides · Claim record templates
Public-interest legal education. The policy, applicable law and facts control. This library does not create an attorney-client relationship or accept a claim for representation. Draft prepared October 21, 2026; final legal and editorial review pending.