The gradual deterioration of roofing materials from age, weathering, and normal use — the most commonly cited exclusion in disputed Colorado hail damage claims and the argument carriers use most often to deny coverage on older roofs.
What Normal Wear and Tear Is
Normal wear and tear is the gradual, expected deterioration of property from regular use, aging, and environmental exposure over time. In the context of homeowner’s insurance, it is one of the most universally applied exclusions — insurance is designed to cover sudden, accidental losses from covered perils, not the predictable decline of materials as they age. A shingle that gradually loses granules over 20 years, becomes brittle from UV exposure, or develops hairline cracks from thermal cycling is exhibiting normal wear and tear. It is not experiencing a covered loss.
The insurance principle behind this exclusion is straightforward and legitimate: if insurance covered normal aging, every homeowner would eventually file a claim for a worn-out roof, and the purpose of insurance — covering unexpected, accidental losses — would be fundamentally distorted. Maintenance and eventual replacement of aging components is a property ownership responsibility, not an insurance event.
The problem in Colorado’s hail corridor is not the exclusion itself — it is the frequency with which carriers misapply it to legitimate storm damage on older roofs, using the presence of some pre-existing wear as grounds to deny coverage for new hail impact damage that clearly occurred and clearly compromised the roof’s performance.
The Wear and Tear Exclusion in Policy Language
The wear and tear exclusion appears in virtually every homeowner’s insurance policy, typically in the exclusions section. Common language includes:
- “We do not insure for loss caused by wear and tear, marring, deterioration…”
- “We do not cover loss resulting from… gradual deterioration, inherent vice, latent defect…”
- “Damage caused by aging, wear, or inadequate maintenance is not covered…”
This language is legitimate and expected. Insurance is not a maintenance contract. The dispute arises when carriers apply this exclusion to damage that was not caused by gradual aging — when they attribute hail impact damage, wind displacement, or storm-related water infiltration to wear and tear as a way to reduce or deny a valid claim.
How Carriers Misapply the Wear and Tear Exclusion
The misapplication of the wear and tear exclusion in Colorado hail claims takes several specific forms, each of which is worth understanding and countering:
Blanket Attribution to Aging
An adjuster inspects an older roof — 15 or 20 years old — and notes granule loss, surface cracking, and general deterioration. Rather than distinguishing between impact-pattern granule loss from recent hail and uniform aging granule loss from long-term weathering, the adjuster attributes all of the observed damage to normal aging and denies the claim. This is the most common and most broadly applied form of wear and tear misuse — treating all damage on an old roof as aging rather than doing the work to separate storm damage from pre-existing conditions.
Age-Based Denial of Causation
The carrier argues that because the roof is old, any damage to it must be from aging rather than from a storm event. This conflates the roof’s age — which affects depreciation and expected remaining service life — with the cause of specific new damage. An old roof can still sustain new storm damage. Age affects how much you receive for a covered claim (through depreciation), not whether the storm caused new damage that is covered.
Using Wear and Tear as a Concurrent Cause
Under policies with anti-concurrent causation clauses, carriers may argue that pre-existing wear contributed to the storm damage — making the claim a concurrent causation situation. If the policy has an ACC clause, the presence of any excluded cause (wear and tear) may give the carrier grounds to deny coverage even when hail was clearly the primary cause. This is the most technically complex form of the wear and tear argument and the one that may require legal analysis to address effectively.
Reclassifying Impact Damage as Cosmetic
A related but distinct approach — arguing that the visible effects of hail impact (granule loss, surface marking) are indistinguishable from normal aging and therefore should be classified as cosmetic rather than storm damage. This argument is specifically addressed by the functional damage standard — impact-pattern granule loss has identifiable characteristics that distinguish it from aging granule loss, and a professional inspection report can document those distinctions.
Normal Wear and Tear vs. Storm Damage — The Key Distinctions
Distinguishing legitimate wear and tear from storm damage requires understanding the specific characteristics that separate gradual aging from impact-caused deterioration:
Distribution Pattern
Normal aging granule loss distributes relatively uniformly across the shingle surface — the sun bleaches, the rain washes, and the wind erodes relatively evenly across exposed areas. Impact-caused granule loss from hail concentrates at discrete impact points — circular or oval areas of displacement that correspond to specific hailstone contact points. The distribution pattern is the single most reliable distinguishing characteristic between aging and impact damage.
Corroborating Evidence
Storm damage does not occur in isolation. Hail that damages shingles also dents gutters, marks painted surfaces, dimples HVAC fins, and cracks pipe boots. Normal aging does not produce soft metal denting. When gutters and HVAC components show fresh impact marks consistent with the reported storm event, that corroborating evidence directly counters the aging argument — because aging does not leave those marks.
Timing Correlation
Impact-pattern granule loss appeared after a specific storm event and was not present in prior inspection records or photographs. Aging granule loss is present continuously and progressively. Before-and-after documentation — dated photographs showing the roof’s condition before the claimed storm and after — is the most direct evidence that new damage occurred at a specific time rather than gradually over years.
Mat Bruising and Exposure
Normal aging does not cause mat bruising — impact compression of the fiberglass mat beneath the shingle surface. Mat bruising and mat exposure from hail impact has specific physical characteristics detectable by professional inspection that are distinct from the surface deterioration pattern of normal aging.
Countering a Wear and Tear Denial
When a carrier denies or reduces a claim by citing wear and tear, the response requires documentation that specifically addresses the causation question — establishing that storm damage caused the damage being claimed, not gradual aging:
Professional Inspection Report
A written inspection report from a qualified roof consultant that specifically identifies impact-pattern damage characteristics — circular granule displacement, mat bruising, consistent soft metal denting — and explicitly distinguishes these findings from the appearance of age-related deterioration is the most effective counter to a wear and tear denial. The report must address the causation question directly, not just describe the damage.
Storm Data
Official storm data from NOAA, Verisk, or CoreLogic confirming that hail of sufficient size to cause functional damage occurred at the property address on the date of loss establishes that a qualifying covered event occurred. Without confirmed storm data, the carrier’s aging argument is easier to sustain.
Before-and-After Documentation
Dated photographs showing the roof’s condition before the claimed storm — whether from a pre-storm baseline inspection, prior insurance claims, or other sources — directly counter the pre-existing damage argument by establishing what the roof looked like before the loss event.
Soft Metal Corroboration
Photographs of fresh hail impact marks on gutters, HVAC fins, pipe boots, and painted surfaces provide independent evidence of a storm event severe enough to cause roof damage — evidence that aging alone cannot produce and that directly supports the storm causation argument.
Wear and Tear and the Functional Damage Standard
One of the most effective approaches to a wear and tear denial on an older roof is reframing the argument around the functional damage standard. The carrier may be correct that some pre-existing wear existed — but the question is not whether the roof showed any aging. The question is whether the storm event caused new, additional damage that materially reduced the roof’s remaining service life and waterproofing function.
An older roof that was still performing adequately before a hailstorm and is no longer performing adequately after it has sustained functional storm damage — regardless of whether it also showed some pre-existing wear. The storm’s contribution to the functional impairment is the covered loss, even if the carrier also acknowledges pre-existing aging as a contributing factor.
Common Wear and Tear Questions
My roof is 18 years old and the carrier says all the damage is wear and tear. Is that a valid denial?
Age alone is not a valid basis for attributing all damage to wear and tear. An 18-year-old roof can sustain new storm damage — the storm does not become non-covered because the roof is old. What age affects is depreciation — how much your carrier pays for the covered damage. If impact-pattern granule loss, soft metal denting, and storm data all point to a specific hail event as the cause of new damage, a blanket aging attribution is a misapplication of the wear and tear exclusion. Counter with a professional inspection report, storm data, and soft metal corroboration that specifically establishes the storm event as the cause of identifiable new damage.
My adjuster noted both aging and hail damage in the inspection report but still denied the claim. What happened?
When an adjuster acknowledges both aging and hail damage in the same report, the carrier is typically invoking a concurrent causation argument — arguing that because the excluded cause (wear and tear) contributed alongside the covered cause (hail), coverage is denied under an anti-concurrent causation clause if the policy includes one. Review your policy specifically for ACC language. If the policy does not have a clear ACC clause, Colorado’s efficient proximate cause doctrine may support coverage when hail was the dominant cause of the functional damage observed. This is a situation that warrants professional review.
How do I document that my roof was in good condition before the storm?
The most effective pre-storm documentation is a professional inspection report with dated photographs taken before the storm. If you do not have a pre-storm inspection, other sources of dated documentation include prior insurance claim records, home inspection reports from a recent purchase, contractor maintenance records, and dated personal photographs that happen to show roof condition. Any dated evidence establishing the roof’s pre-storm condition counters the pre-existing damage argument directly.
Can a carrier deny coverage for a brand-new roof based on wear and tear?
No — a brand-new roof has no meaningful wear and tear. A carrier that denies a hail damage claim on a recently installed roof by citing wear and tear has no factual basis for the aging argument. Document the installation date, the contractor’s invoice, and any post-installation inspection records. A wear and tear denial on a recent installation is clearly a misapplication of the exclusion and should be challenged immediately.
How Claim Advocacy Helps With Wear and Tear Disputes
Wear and tear disputes are the most common type of causation dispute in Colorado roof claims — and the most reliably resolved with the right professional documentation.
- Impact pattern documentation — producing photographs and inspection findings that specifically identify the distribution pattern and characteristics of hail-caused damage, distinguishing it from aging deterioration
- Storm data procurement — obtaining official hail size and storm path data for the property address and date of loss to establish the qualifying covered event
- Professional inspection reports — written reports that directly address the causation question, distinguishing storm damage from pre-existing aging in language carriers and appraisers can evaluate
- Soft metal corroboration — documenting fresh hail impact on gutters, HVAC, and other surfaces to independently establish storm severity
- ACC clause analysis — evaluating whether the carrier’s concurrent causation argument is supported by the specific policy language and whether Colorado’s efficient proximate cause doctrine provides protection
- Denial response documentation — preparing the complete evidentiary package needed to challenge a wear and tear denial through supplement, re-inspection, appraisal, or legal review
Related Glossary Terms
- Functional Damage
- Granule Loss
- Causation
- Concurrent Causation
- Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
- Pre-Existing Condition
- Exclusion
- Denial
- Documentation
- Bruising (Shingle)
Carrier Blaming Your Hail Damage on Wear and Tear?
Wear and tear misapplication is the most common basis for disputed roof claims in Colorado — and the most consistently countered with professional inspection documentation that specifically addresses the causation question. A free inspection produces the technical evidence needed to distinguish impact damage from aging deterioration before your carrier finalizes a denial that may not hold up under scrutiny.
📞 Call to discuss your claim: (719) 210-8699
📧 Email: gerald@winik.io