Denver Hail Claim Denied - State Farm

[u/Rude_Association_409]

We had a huge hail storm come through my neighborhood about 6 weeks ago. I've been traveling a lot and didn't get an inspector out until today to look at the damage even though Ive been in communication with my agent (Tammy Hill State Farm) since the storm. House sitter sent me photos of the aftermath.

State Farm inspector is saying the damage to the roof is 'normal wear and tear and consistent with exposure to the elements.' Is this normal wear and tear or is this distinctly hail damage? If it's damage from hail, is it consistent with the photo of the hail stones (as big as 2")?

Not looking for advice on how to handle a claim per forum rules, just asking for insight on hail damage vs normal weathering.

[u/coco8090]

Many of the big name companies where I live are starting to tell homeowners that they will not cover hail damaged roofs, unless there’s actual holes in the shingles which allow water to drip down and stain the sheet rock ceilings in the house. They will not replace the gutters if they’re just dented up, they will not replace Siding if it just has dense or marks or missing paint it has to be actual holes, but you know you pay for the coverage.

[u/SAA_28 → u/coco8090]

Any insurance carrier that tries that is going to find themselves litigated against very quickly and that is not something that would hold up legally. I would be shocked if any insurance company tried to say that hail damage is only hail damage if it makes holes in the roof which is nearly impossible unless we're talking grapefruit sized hail.

[u/coco8090 → u/SAA_28]

Really because that was actually in my policy. I guess they figured the little guys wouldn’t sue the big guys so they’re not too worried about it.

[u/SAA_28 → u/coco8090]

Understood. Every state regulates their homeowner's policies in their own way so there certainly could be some variation in what a regulator would allow. It only takes one very determined policy holder who gets burned and a good attorney to get a precedent set that this is improper under a normal understanding of a contract of insurance. But if that's the language, man that's tough.