The federal district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, finding there was no coverage for hail damage due to an exclusion for cosmetic hail damage. Cannon Falls Area Schools v Hanover Am. Ins. Co., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206792 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2025).

On April 22, 2022, a hailstorm and high winds damaged the insured School’s buildings. The School’s buildings had metal roofs. The parties agreed that the hailstorm caused indentations to the roofs, but did not puncture the metal on the roofs. Since the storm, the roofs had not leaked.

The School submitted a claim for property damage to its insurer, Hanover. A portion of the claim for damage to the HVAC equipment was paid. The remainder of the claim was denied based on the policy’s Cosmetic Damage Exclusion which excluded coverage for cosmetic damage to roof surfacing caused by wind or hail.

The School filed suit. The School’s expert opined that the indentations to the metal roof surfaces weakened the metal and made it more susceptible to further damage, particularly from wind and snow. Based on the expert’s testing, he opined that the indentations weakened the metal roof coverings, making it more likely that future weather events could cause the roofing materials to fail, allowing the elements to break through the roofs’ barriers and damage the School.

Hanover’s expert agreed that the roofs had widespread sporadic indentations from the hailstorm. He did not, however, see any disruption of the surface finishes on the roofs from the hail indentations. He felt the shallow indentations in the metal roofs neither reduced the ability of the materials to shed water nor shorten the lifespan of the materials.

Hanover moved for summary judgment.

The court noted that the dispute boiled down to a disagreement about what it meant for a roof to continue to function as a barrier to the elements to the same extent that it did before the hail or wind damage occurred. The School argued that it was more likely now than before the April 2022 storm that the roofs could puncture or otherwise allow the elements to get past the metal surfacing. Another hailstorm could strike the metal roofs in the same indentations that were caused by the April 2022 storm, and they would be more likely to fail as a result.

Hanover argued the phrase “to the same extent” in the exclusion meant that if a roof did not leak before hail dented the roof, and it did not leak after the hail dented the roof, then the roof continued to function as a barrier to the elements, making the damage “cosmetic” and excluded from coverage.

The policy’s exclusion stated that damage was cosmetic when it “does not prevent the roof from continuing to function as a barrier to entrance of the elements to the same extent as it did before the cosmetic damage occurred.” This language plainly reffered to the type of surface damage at issue in this case. There was no dispute that in the three years since the April 2022 hailstorm, the metal roofs had continued to function as a barrier to the elements. There was no evidence of any leaks or any other incursion of the elements.

Hanover was granted summary judgment.