HOLDING NEGLIGENT ROOFERS ACCOUNTABLE: Subrogating Water Losses from Poor Rain Protection

When homeowners hire roofing contractors to repair or replace their roofs, they expect professionalism and care. However, water damage caused by a roofer’s failure to protect a roof during inclement weather is a common and costly problem.

For Insurance carriers pursuing subrogation, overcoming the defenses asserted by roofers, including claims that roofing work cannot always be protected against rain, can be challenging. However, roofers have a duty to plan for foreseeable weather conditions and take reasonable steps to mitigate potential damage. This article will explore subrogation opportunities in roofing-related water loss cases, analyze the defenses raised by roofers, and discuss strategies for insurance carriers to maximize their recovery potential.

The Roofer’s Duty to Prevent Water Damage

Roofing contractors are responsible for ensuring that a home remains protected from the elements during construction. This duty includes properly securing tarps and ensuring that roofing projects do not leave a home vulnerable to rain damage. According to industry best practices, roofers should:

• • Plan their work according to accurate weather forecasts.
  • Use high-quality tarps to cover exposed roofing areas.
  • Secure coverings with sufficient weights or fasteners.
  • Stop work early enough to ensure protective measures are in place before rain begins.

Despite these precautions, roofers often argue that covering a roof completely is not always feasible or that unexpected weather changes can result in unavoidable damage. However, modern weather forecasting and the availability of mobile alerts provide roofers with ample opportunity to plan and react accordingly.

Common Defenses Asserted by Roofers

Roofers facing subrogation claims often rely on the following defenses:

1. 1. Tarping is Not a Substitute for a Roof: Roofers claim that even properly secured tarps are not a perfect barrier against rain. While true, courts recognize that failing to tarp or improperly secure coverings constitutes negligence.
   2. Unforeseen Weather Events: Contractors argue that sudden storms are beyond their control. However, as seen in Michigan Mut. Liab. Co. v. G. & L. Roofing Co., 123 So. 2d 300 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960), courts have held that roofers must plan for reasonably foreseeable weather conditions.
   3. Act of God Defense: In cases such as Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 of Mississippi Cnty. v. Sanders, 289 S.W.2d 529 (Ark. 1956), courts have considered whether extreme weather absolves a contractor of liability. However, the burden is on the roofer to prove that the event was truly extraordinary and unforeseeable. In such cases, a weather expert or meteorologist may be necessary to help the jury understand the weather event that contributed to the loss.

Burden of Proof in Roofing Water Damage Cases

Insurance carriers seeking subrogation must establish:

1. 1. The roofer had a duty to protect the property.
   2. The roofer breached that duty by failing to take reasonable precautions.
   3. The failure resulted in water damage.
   4. The damages are quantifiable and directly related to the roofer’s negligence.

Case law varies by state. In Wider v. Heritage Maint., Inc., 827 N.Y.S.2d 837 (Sup. Ct. 2007), the court held that a contractor’s failure to secure roofing materials against anticipated rain created a triable issue of negligence. Conversely, in Holesapple v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., No. C033615, 2002 WL 749198 (Cal. App. 2002), the court found in favor of a roofer where the plaintiff failed to show that industry standards required tarping under the specific circumstances.

Case Study: Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. CIRSCO

In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London a/s/o Restoration Hardware, Inc. v. CIRSCO, 2025 WL 712060 (M.D. Fla. 2025), a roofing contractor was sued after rain damaged a store’s interior when a portion of the roof was left exposed. The court denied summary judgment, citing factual disputes regarding whether the contractor took reasonable measures to prevent damage. This case underscores the importance of gathering evidence to demonstrate that roofers had ample opportunity to prevent foreseeable damage.

Maximizing Subrogation Recoveries

Insurance carriers should take the following steps to strengthen their subrogation cases:

• Gather Documentation: Secure weather reports, project timelines, and communication records to refute claims of unforeseen conditions.
• Obtain Expert Testimony: Roofing experts can testify regarding industry standards and whether reasonable precautions were taken.
• Obtain Weather Reports: Weather can be different in two locations only a few hundred fee apart. It is the subrogated carrier’s burden to prove the weather conditions, the predictability of the storm event, and the signs and signals purportedly missed or ignored by a roofer eager to get the job done.
• Secure Witness Statements: Testimony from homeowners, neighbors, or subcontractors can help establish negligence.
• Assess Local Laws: Different jurisdictions apply varying standards of care and defenses.

Conclusion: The Need for Experienced Subrogation Counsel

Water damage claims arising from negligent roofing work present significant subrogation opportunities for insurers. While roofers often argue that tarping is inadequate or that weather events are unpredictable, courts hold contractors accountable when they fail to take reasonable precautions. Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. has extensive experience handling these claims and can assist insurers in maximizing recoveries. For more information or a review of your case files, please contact Nicholas DeStefanis at ndestefanis@mwl-law.com.