PLRB has curated this curriculum featuring some key resources on the topic of ‘
PLRB has curated this curriculum featuring some key resources on the topic of ‘
State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Distinctive Foods, LLC (2024)
The complaint did not allege an occurrence but rather only alleged intentional conduct.
Ventilation and Reroofing or Roof Replacement in Fort Lupton, CO
QUESTION: For a private residence in Fort Lupton, Colorado, is ice and water shield required at eaves and valleys when completing a reroofing project? RESPONSE: Yes. The 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) was adopted by the City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, as the residential code for the City. Section R905.2.7.1 covers ice barrier requirements and does not require ice and water shield, ice barrier underlayment, unless there is a history of ice forming along the eaves causing a backup of water, which is left to local jurisdictions to determine and adopt the requirement. Fort Lupton completed Table R301.2(1) and indicated “Yes” in the “Ice Barrier Underlayment Required” column. Possibly. Valley linings are covered in section R905.2.8.2, separately from the Ice Barrier Underlayment requirement of Section R905.2.7.1. The valley lining requirements permit different methods of underlayment, including self-adhering polymer-modified bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970 (aka ice barrier underlayment), but the code does not require this underlayment. The IRC requires roof coverings be installed pursuant to manufacturer’s instructions throughout Chapter 9, including the valley lining provisions. Consultation of the manufacturer’s instructions is necessary to determine if ice barrier underlayment is required in valleys. FACTS: Roof replacement on insured's home located in Fort Lupton, Colorado. DISCUSSION: Colorado has no mandatory statewide residential code for privately owned one- or two-family dwellings and townhomes. Counties may adopt, administer, enforce, and amend building codes for all types of buildings and structures, except for those buildings and structures used only for shelter for agricultural implements, farm products, livestock, or poultry. C.R.S. 30-28-201(1) (authority to adopt); C.R.S. 30-28-205(1) (enforcement); C.R.S. 30-28-204 (amendment). Building codes must be promulgated “with a reasonable consideration of, and in accordance with, the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare and the safety, protection, and sanitation of such dwellings, buildings and structures.” C.R.S. 30-28-203. Municipalities, like counties, may enact building codes. C.R.S. 31-15-601(2) (municipal building and fire regulations); Colo. Const. Art. XX, § 6 (home rule powers). The authority to establish building codes implicitly includes the power to enforce the content of the codes. West Adams County Fire Protection District v. Adams County School District 12, 926 P.2d 172, 175-76 (Colo. App. 1996). Pursuant to its home rule powers, the City of Fort Lupton adopted the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC), with amendments. Fort Lupton, Colorado, Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Article XI, § 18-221. 2012 IRC Reroofing Section R907 of the 2012 IRC on Reroofing requires that recovering or replacing an existing roof must comply with the materials and methods outlined for new roofs in Chapter 9. 2012 IRC § R907.1. Therefore, the provisions concerning ice barrier underlayment in Chapter 9 must be considered. ICE BARRIER UNDERLAYMENT Ice barrier underlayment is required under Section R905.2.7.1 where there is a history of ice forming along eaves as designated in local amendments in Table R301.2. 2012 IRC § R905.2.7.1. Pursuant to Section R905.2.7.1, the City of Fort Lupton completed Table R301.2(1) indicating “YES” that ice barrier underlayment is required. Fort Lupton, Colorado, Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Article XI, § 18-225. Accordingly, the City of Fort Lupton requires the installation of ice barrier underlayment at the eaves when installing or replacing a roof. Valley Lining and Underlayment In general, roof covering material should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions: Roof coverings shall be applied in accordance with the applicable provisions of this section and the manufacturer's installation instructions. Unless otherwise specified in this section, roof coverings shall be installed to resist the component and cladding loads specified in Table R301.2(2), adjusted for height and exposure in accordance with Table R301.2(3). 2012 IRC § R905.1. Valley linings are covered separately under Section R905.2.8.2: “Valley linings shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions before applying shingles. Valley linings of the following types shall be permitted: For open valleys (valley lining exposed) lined with metal, the valley lining shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mm) wide and of any of the corrosion-resistant metals in Table R905.2.8.2. For open valleys, valley lining of two plies of mineral-surfaced roll roofing, complying with ASTM D3909 or ASTM D6380 Class M, shall be permitted. The bottom layer shall be 18 inches (457 mm) and the top layer not less than 36 inches (914 mm) wide. For closed valleys (valley covered with shingles), valley lining of one ply of smooth roll roofing complying with ASTM D6380 and not less than 36 inches wide (914 mm) or valley lining as described in Item 1 or 2 shall be permitted. Self-adhering polymer-modified bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970 shall be permitted in lieu of the lining material.” 2012 IRC § R905.2.8.2. Subsections 1 and 2 are specifically cited for open valleys but the listed installation methods are permitted for closed valleys in subsection 3. Subsection 1 includes metal valleys with specifications but no installation instructions. Subsection 2 allows for two plies of roll roofing. Subsection 3 is specific to closed valleys and allows for one ply of roll roofing, either method described in the other subsections, or ice and water shield (ice barrier underlayment) material. (Note: "Self-adhering polymer-modified bitumen underlayment complying with ASTM D1970" is a technical way of referring to ice barrier underlayment). This suggests that standard underlayment cannot be used as a replacement for valley liners. CONCLUSION: The City of Fort Lupton, Colorado, adopted the 2012 IRC and completed Table 301.2(1) to require the installation of ice barrier underlayment at the eaves when installing or replacing a roof. Valley linings are treated separately in the IRC and there is no specific requirement for ice barrier underlayment, though it is cited as a permissible underlayment option for closed valleys. The manufacturer's instructions must be considered to determine what underlayment is required for open or closed valleys. How are we doing with this building code research service? We hope you find this answer helpful. If you have a moment, please let us know how we are doing by replying to this email. Property & Liability Resource Bureau Disclaimer We hope this discussion assists you. It is intended to present you with information about case law and other authority applicable to the interpretation of the relevant insurance policy provisions. Any opinions expressed are for internal use only. This discussion is presented as information only and is not offered as legal advice or an offer of legal representation. PLRB research and writing is not a substitute for legal advice as to the law of a particular jurisdiction as applied in the full factual context of a particular claim. The opinions expressed in this discussion are those of the staff of the Property & Liability Resource Bureau and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the membership. The opinions of the staff of the Bureau do not represent an indication or prediction of any future action or position of any member insurer. You should consult with your company's management to determine your company's positions on the issues discussed. Confidentiality & Copyright Notice Property & Liability Resource Bureau members may reproduce this material or any portion of it for the exclusive use of their employees. Any other reproduction or distribution of this material or any portion of it without the express written consent of the Bureau is strictly prohibited. A full statement of our confidentiality policy and its rationale is here Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024
Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Berry (2024)
The policyholder's fire damage claim was covered even though only the policyholder's son resided at the dwelling because applicability of the policy's residency requirement to the "residence premises" definition was ambiguous.
Copyright © Property & Liability Resource Bureau 2024