Hurricane damaged roofs and the 1% matching clause: what property managers need to know
Disclaimer: The following are some general thoughts and considerations when analyzing roof damage in conjunction with the 1% matching clause that is increasingly included in insurance policies. A thorough policy review is necessary to ascertain individual claim constraints and coverages in connection with the matching clause. Claims must be analyzed on an individual case by case basis to make assumptions appropriately. Without reading individual policies and surveying property damage firsthand, it is impossible to provide an individual professional opinion. Please read the following as a general guide.
In the wake of hurricane-related damage, property managers overseeing large buildings expect their insurance policies to respond appropriately to restore roofs and building integrity. However, many are confronted with insurers invoking a 1% matching clause—an insurance policy limitation that restricts payment for matching materials to 1% of the Coverage A limit. This often leaves property owners and stakeholders without sufficient funds to restore their buildings to pre-loss condition, presenting both a financial and legal challenge.
This article examines a real-world example of the 1% matching issue, explores why full roof replacement is often a viable solution, and outlines legal protections under Florida law that may supersede policy limitation. All the while, your individual policy may severely limit and box you in to limited coverage. Please provide your full policy to determine the full extent of policy constraints.
Case Study: The 1% Matching Clause in Practice
A multi-unit residential building sustained significant roof damage due to a hurricane. The insurance policy included a 1% matching clause, limiting payment for matching materials to just 1% of Coverage A.
Coverage A Limit: $8,000,000
Matching Clause Cap: $80,000
Despite visible and structural damage, the insurer used the clause to avoid paying for uniform replacement. The full roof replacement cost exceeded $700,000, and the insurer’s assessment application of $80,000 barely scratched the surface. They inappropriately wrote an estimate which only addressed the actual damaged tiles under the matching clause. They failed to address many other roofing costs that were outside the 1% matching clause.
Furthermore, the matching clause is not exclusive to roofs on the claim. It applies to all materials such as flooring, paint, cabinetry etc.
Insurance companies may write damages for these other appurtenances, however if the 1% has been exhausted on the roof alone, they may not allocate any funds for the rest of the matching damage if it falls under the 1% matching portion of the policy.
This example underscores the importance of understanding how these clauses are applied in commercial and multi-unit property claims. That’s why it is critical to work with a Public Adjusting firm at the onset of damage at the very beginning as they will present the damage in a way that sets the property owner up for maximum success.
Why Full Roof Replacement is Often Necessary
1. Contractor Estimates and Expert Testimony Matter:
A detailed estimate from a licensed roofing contractor is essential. A professional opinion should address:
· Extent of storm-related damage
· Discontinued or unmatched roofing materials
· Is Roof material matchable? If so identify the cost of matching.
· Repairability
· Results of brittle and lift tests
· Potential for safety hazards or voided warranties
· Compatibility of underlayment and fasteners
· Extent of actual tiles damage
· Extent of tiles to be detached and reused to access damaged tiles.
These reports must challenge any insurer's attempt to mischaracterize damage as cosmetic or easily patchable. It’s critical to break down the estimate in detail to compartmentalize coverage. If a roofer presents a typical estimate that describes the scope of work with a one lump sum price, then it opens the door for an uninformed desk adjuster at the insurance company to cap the whole thing under the 1% inappropriately.
However, when the roofing estimate is compartmentalized as described above along with affixing a price for 1% damage, it puts the insured in the best position possible while closing the door for misappropriation and interpretation of the 1% matching clause.
In summary, there are a litany of costs associated with a roof repair or replacement. Matching may be a small percentage of the overall cost and should be documented appropriately and presented in a clear and concise report.
2. Florida Building Code Compliance (The 25% Rule)
· The Florida Building Code (FBC) Section 706.1.1 requires that if more than 25% of a roof section is damaged, the entire section must be replaced to meet current code.
Key legal provisions:
· “Not more than 25 percent of the total roof area or roof section of any existing building or structure shall be repaired, replaced, or recovered in any 12-month period unless the roof covering on the entire existing roof system or roof section is replaced to conform to the requirements of this code.” This is for dwellings with roofs before the 2007 code.
· If the roof was built or repaired after the 2007 Florida Building Code, only the damaged portion must comply with the latest code.
This means that if the hurricane damaged a pre-2007 code compliant roof of 25% or more of any slope, a full replacement is legally required—the 1% matching clause does not override this law.
3. Tile Discontinuation & Unavailability of Matching Materials:
· Many barrel tile roofing materials have been discontinued and are no longer available.
· Even if the same manufacturer still exists, factors like color variation, weathering, and aging make an exact match impossible.
· Florida Statute 626.9744(2) requires that replacement materials must match in “quality, color, and size.” Legal Text (Florida Statute 626.9744(2)):
· If an insurer cannot match damaged materials, they must extend repairs to adjoining areas to ensure uniformity according to the older building code.
· Insurers cannot simply cap payouts at 1% when full replacement is needed to maintain aesthetics and functionality if the old code is in play. Functionality is important because the tile replacement needs to adhere to uniformity as opposed to matching in aesthetics.
4. Manufacturer Warranty Issues
Mixing new and old materials may void manufacturer warranties due to mismatched fasteners, underlayments, and weathered tiles. Property managers must protect ownership interests by insisting on repairs that maintain full system warranties.
5. Fastener & Underlayment Compatibility Issues:
· Florida’s hurricane codes require that fasteners and underlayment meet updated wind resistance standards.
· A partial repair may not bring the entire roof up to code, leaving the insurer responsible for a full replacement. This relates to the prior mention of the 2007 building code onward.
· It’s critical to ascertain whether the policy protects the facility under Ordinance and Law. When a contractor files a permit to replace a roof, sometimes the local authorities having jurisdiction will impose some code upgrades. These additional costs may be covered under the Ordinance and Law coverage in the policy.
6. Wind Resistance and Structural Integrity
Tile roofing systems on large buildings rely on interlocking installation. Partial repairs compromise wind resistance and may create long-term vulnerabilities, especially under Florida's hurricane exposure.
· Florida’s hurricane codes require that fasteners and underlayment meet updated wind resistance standards.
· A partial repair may not bring the entire roof up to code, which if required leaves the insurer responsible for a full replacement. This relates to the prior mention of the 2007 building code onward.
7. Safety & Liability Risks:
· Partial repairs often create uneven walking surfaces, increasing hazards for roofers, inspectors, and future homeowners.
· A poorly patched roof can lead to water intrusion, mold growth, and structural damage—all of which pose long-term risks and liability issues. This could particularly be attributed to poor workmanship relating to the patch, however some roofing systems do not perform well with a patch and may cause issues no matter how well the installation was executed. The insurance companies entire purpose is to restore you back to pre-loss conditions. We at VIP Adjusting are of the opinion that a patch is not pre-loss condition.
8. Insurance Companies Must Act in Good Faith
Duty of Insurers to Act in Good Faith Under Florida Statute 624.155, insurers are obligated to act in good faith. Misappropriating coverage to apply the entire roof replacement under the 1% matching rule can be construed as bad faith. We have seen firsthand accounts of insurance companies attempting to apply the whole roof under the 1% matching clause. Rather, the only thing that should be under the 1% matching clause in terms of roof are those tiles that need to only be replaced to match the tiles that are newly replaced.
Conclusion: The 1% Clause Is Not a Justification to Deny Coverage or underpay claims.
Insurers may attempt to enforce a 1% matching clause which is of course their right under the policy, but how they do it is important to consider and analyze. Sometimes, matching is only a small percentage of cost of the entire roof while all the other roofing costs may be covered outside of the 1% coverage. Insurance companies are still bound by Florida law, building code requirements, and ethical standards and need to be held accountable if they are not following protocol.
If 25% or more of a roof section is damaged, full replacement may be required depending upon which code the structure was built under.
If the roofing material is discontinued or fails brittle/lift tests, uniformity must be restored and the cost is not a part of 1% matching clause. This same theme applies to many other facets of a roof system.
If warranty, safety, or code compliance is at risk, partial repairs are not sufficient.
Advice to Property Managers:
If your insurer is attempting to undervalue or deny proper roof replacement, engage a qualified Public Adjuster immediately (ideally at the onset of damage or even before filing a claim). The professionals understand how to navigate policy limitations, defend code compliance requirements, and compel fair settlements.
At VIP Adjusting, we specialize in large loss and hurricane-related damage for commercial and multi-unit buildings. We work with property managers to protect their assets and ensure full compliance with policy and code.
📞 Call Now: 833-WITH-VIP
📧 Email: Office@vipadjusting.com
Other articles of interest:
