A recent federal court ruling out of Georgia highlights a basic principle that policyholders and public adjusters must never overlook. The property insurance only covers losses that occur during the policy period. Except in a few states, under rare circumstances, the date of discovery is not deemed the date of loss.
In Jaraysi v. The Travelers Personal Insurance Company, 1 the policyholders came home from vacation in August 2022 to find their roof leaking. They promptly filed a claim with their insurer, Travelers, only to have it denied. Believing they were wronged, they sued for breach of contract and bad faith denial. Yet, when the case reached summary judgment, the court sided entirely with the insurer.
What doomed the plaintiffs’ case was not the nature of the damage. Instead, it was the lack of evidence about the timing of the loss. Their policy clearly limited coverage to “direct physical loss to property” occurring between September 23, 2021, and September 23, 2022. The policyholders and their counsel assumed that because they noticed the leak in August 2022, the damage must have happened within that time. However, the court made clear that the discovery of damage is not proof of when it occurred. There must be admissible evidence connecting the physical damage to a date within the policy window.
The policyholders hired a roofer and a roofing expert. Both concluded the damage was storm-related. But neither could identify when the storm happened. No one pointed to specific weather events. No one traced the causal chain from storm to damage to leak with enough clarity to give the court anything to work with beyond speculation. Even testimony that debris and roof damage were visible the day after the leak was noticed fell flat. There was no indication the damage was fresh, no prior inspection records to establish a before-and-after comparison, and no testimony suggesting a recent inspection had revealed an undamaged roof. In the absence of temporal evidence, the court had little choice. It granted summary judgment to Travelers, ruling that no reasonable jury could conclude the damage occurred during the policy period.
This decision teaches an important lesson to both policyholders and public adjusters. When seeking coverage under a property policy, it is not enough to demonstrate that the damage is real or that it appears to be caused by something covered, like a storm. You must also prove when it happened and that “when” must fall within the coverage dates. This can’t be assumed; it must be documented. Every claim should be approached with an eye toward establishing a clear timeline showing the insurer when the loss happened. That might mean ordering historical weather reports, preserving early inspection photos, or obtaining expert opinions that date the damage based on wear patterns or environmental clues. Failing to do so risks the entire claim, no matter how legitimate the underlying loss.
Too often, people think in terms of discovery: “We saw the leak in August, so the damage must have happened then.” But insurance contracts hinge on occurrence, not awareness. Courts will not fill in those gaps. In fact, they are bound not to. As in this case, even a plausible story can fail if the evidence doesn’t trace the damage back into the insured timeframe.
Timing cases often arise with roof claims. No homeowner is getting on a ladder and inspecting their roof on a routine basis or after every thunderstorm. Most do not know about any damage until a roof leak provides the clue. So, this is not a rare issue regarding property insurance claims.
For those who want to study “timing” issues more, I suggest reading Is the Exact Date of Loss Required in Pleadings Rather Than a Claim and Proof That a Loss Occurred During the Policy Period, Does a Policyholder Have to Inspect the Structure Every Day to Find a Loss, and Which Hailstorm Damaged Your Roof? The Time of Hail Damage Is Often Disputed.
Thought For The Day
“Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.”
— W. Edwards Deming
1 Jaraysi v. The Travelers Personal Ins. Co., No. 1:23-cv-04610 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2025).
