Ethics and Roofing
My spouse and I live in a house whose roof who has been in place for 15-20 years of a purported life expectancy of 25 years.
Recently we had large hail stones and strong winds that accompanied a nearby tornado. We have homeowner’s insurance that covers storm damage—a particular type that provides “full replacement value” for legitimate claims (which we pay for by an increased cost).
The insurance company told me that damage caused by a storm is a legitimate claim, and that I should get an estimate and call them back. A roofer who looked at the roof estimates that the entire roof would need to be replaced at a cost of $7,000-10,000 (minus the deductible)
It turns out that my spouse and I have different views of this situation. My position is that insurance represents an investment you make to protect yourself against major setbacks. The fact that the storm happened towards the end of the roof’s life-cycle is irrelevant
My spouse, however, considers it unethical and even “sleazy”, since we would have to replace the roof at some point through its natural wearing out, and the current situation was just a way to get a new roof for little money. We probably would never have taken any action had not the roofer himself informed us about that insurance would cover storm damage (this might very well be true.)
My spouse feels that the situation would be different if we had just recently installed a new roof, since its value would be higher and thus more worthy of a claim.
What is your opinion of the ethics of this situation?