Result of Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to repair the Facility is required as a result of the declared incident. Therefore, the requested work is ineligible for PA funding and this appeal is denied. 

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From September 1 through 3, 2021, Hurricane Ida caused extensive damage throughout the state of New York. The Applicant is a private nonprofit (PNP) organization that owns and operates a church in a two-story building built in 1914 (Facility), which the Applicant claims was damaged as a result of the disaster. FEMA created Grants Manager project (GMP) 682769 to document the claimed damage to the Facility’s exterior areas, flat and gabled roofs, and interior areas and contents. The Applicant sought $173,148.81 in Public Assistance (PA) funding for building repairs and content replacement. 

On December 29, 2022, FEMA conducted a virtual site inspection. In the site inspection report, the Applicant stated the Facility is a two-story building and is composed of a brick and masonry stucco exterior. The report states that wind-driven rain entered the roof and seeped into the ceilings and down the walls, resulting in one to two inches of water in the building interior. The Applicant submitted photographs showing the interior damage (fallen ceiling tiles, stained walls and ceilings, moldy carpets, and damaged furniture). The Applicant also submitted invoices showing the flat roof had recently been repaired, prior to the disaster.[1] 

The Applicant provided insurance documentation, which included an October 8, 2021, letter from the Applicant’s insurance carrier denying coverage based on an exclusion for water intrusion.[2] In its letter, the insurance adjuster noted that most of the interior water damage was concentrated at and around the roof drains which did not show any wind or storm-related damage. The report also stated that the gabled roof above the upper-level area of the Facility was in a deteriorated condition and that the flat roof had been repaired prior to his inspection. Additionally, the adjuster noted that predisaster aerial photographs from Google Maps showed missing shingles in the gabled roof.

On May 12, 2023, FEMA issued a Request for Information (RFI), asking the Applicant to provide supporting documentation indicating that the roof-related damages were caused by the disaster and delineating between damages caused by basement flooding and water infiltration through the roof. In response, the Applicant submitted a letter indicating that on June 13, 2022, the executive director of The Elevated Studio, an architect, inspected the Facility, determined the damage to the roofs and other areas was caused by the incident, and recommended a series of roof repairs.[3] The letter included a photograph of the executive director pulling back the membrane on the flat roof, with a caption explaining how he believes the rain inundated the Facility.[4] The Applicant did not provide a technical report stemming from the consultation. The Applicant also provided an attestation that “damages to church contents were caused by a mold outbreak from moisture present in the building both from the water that came up through the floor and the water infiltration through the roof.”[5]

On September 8, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying $173,148.81. FEMA found the Applicant did not demonstrate the damage was caused by the disaster and was instead the result of pre-existing damage and deferred maintenance.

First Appeal

In a letter dated November 6, 2023, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial of $173,148.81. The Applicant asserted the damage to the Facility was primarily caused by excessive rainfall that led to the entire ground-level interior being flooded and that driving rain from the storm penetrated the membrane roof and seeped into the ceiling and down the walls. The Applicant argued the roofs were regularly maintained and in good condition and that the flat roof had been recently repaired.[6] The Applicant stated that the recently resurfaced flat roof was unable to accommodate the high rate of rainfall and that leakage occurred through both the flat and sloped gabled areas of the roof despite both roofs performing adequately prior to the storm. The Applicant also contends that while the insurance denial letter determined there was no damage covered by the Applicant’s policy, the adjuster did not state that there was no damage caused by the disaster. On January 5, 2024, the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (Recipient) forwarded the Applicant’s appeal to FEMA with its support.

On May 16, 2024, FEMA issued an RFI to the Applicant, requesting (1) full insurance policies; (2) insurance determination letters including documentation related to denied appeals or if the Applicant did not appeal the insurance denial, a justification for not doing so; (3) a floor plan to identify the location of flat and pitched roofs; (4) clarification of whether wind-driven rain or rising flood water caused the water leaks in a library window; (5) clarification as to which roof is related to the April 2021 invoice for roof repairs; and (6) any documentation related to predisaster maintenance or Facility status, specifically, predisaster photographs of interior and exterior areas with appropriate identification. FEMA explained that it was unable to determine predisaster conditions based on the aerial pictures submitted.

On June 14, 2024, FEMA received the Applicant’s RFI response. The Applicant provided the insurance policy and floor plan and stated the majority of interior damage was caused by surface water intrusion. The Applicant stated it did not appeal the insurance denial under the advice of its insurance broker. Regarding the invoice, the Applicant clarified it was for installation of a roof membrane on the flat roof prior to the disaster. The Applicant did not submit additional maintenance documents or pictures showing conditions of the interior or exterior of the building prior to the disaster. The Applicant asserted that the roofs were fully functional before the disaster. 

On September 12, 2024, the Region 2 Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal. FEMA found the Applicant had not demonstrated that work to replace the Facility’s roofs, repair the interior, or replace contents was required as a result of the declared incident. FEMA determined the Applicant had not demonstrated it performed regular predisaster maintenance to the roof drains and stated that post-disaster photographs showed extensive cracking consistent with deferred maintenance of the roof drains. Additionally, FEMA stated the insurance adjuster’s report supported that water damage to the Facility’s interior originated from the roof drain areas which were not damaged as a result of the disaster, but rather, deteriorated over time. Finally, aerial photographs showed damage and missing shingles to the sloped roof prior to the disaster.

Second Appeal

On November 10, 2024, the Applicant submitted a second appeal reiterating previous arguments. The Applicant asserts that most of the water infiltration was due to the record-breaking rainfall produced by Hurricane Ida, which caused water to pool around the base of the Facility and seep up through the foundation and it submitted a table showing that 8.41 inches of rain fell on September 1, 2021. Additionally, the Applicant states it has not seen the post-disaster photographs of the cracked roof drains referenced in the first appeal response and that recent photographs of the Facility’s roof drains do not show extensive cracking or deferred maintenance. The Applicant resubmitted the photograph of the architect from The Elevated Studio showing where the architect believed driving rain from Hurricane Ida penetrated the membrane. 

As evidence of maintenance activities, the Applicant provided a general description of regular maintenance and submitted a statement signed by Stanley Home Improvement (Contractor), dated November 10, 2024. The statement confirms that the Applicant paid the Contractor for removal of existing asphalt and gravel and installation of a rubber membrane on the Facility’s flat roof prior to the disaster. The Contractor stated that, at the time, it had checked that the gutters and roof drains were clear and that there was no cracking around the roof drains. The Contractor stated its opinion that the roofs were in reasonable condition to withstand normal rainfall prior to the incident. 

On January 7, 2025, the Recipient forwarded the Applicant’s appeal with its support. The Recipient reiterated there was no pre-existing damage to the roof drains and, in addition to water entering the building from wind-driven rain forcing water behind the roof membrane, water also infiltrated the building from over-saturated groundwater, causing further interior damages.

Discussion

FEMA may provide assistance for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of an eligible facility damaged or destroyed by a major disaster.[7] To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the declared incident, and the Applicant must demonstrate that damage was caused directly by the declared incident.[8] FEMA does not provide funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration, deferred maintenance, or an applicant’s failure to take measures to protect a facility from further damage.[9] For buildings and building systems, distinguishing between pre-existing damage and damage caused by the incident may be difficult.[10] When necessary to validate damage, the applicant may be required to provide predisaster photographs of the impacted site or documentation supporting the predisaster condition of the facility (e.g., facility maintenance records or inspection/safety reports).[11] The applicant is responsible for providing documentation to support its claim as eligible.[12]

Exterior Damage

The Applicant requests repairs to the exterior areas of the Facility, including the walls. However, the Applicant has not provided documentation, such as predisaster photographs of exterior areas, to support its claims that the disaster caused damage to the exterior portions of the Facility. The post-disaster exterior photographs show cracks in the stucco exterior wall of the Facility; however, due to the age of the Facility and the lack of pre-disaster photographs, FEMA cannot determine if these cracks were caused by the disaster. Due to the lack of supporting documentation, FEMA finds the requested exterior repairs to be ineligible.

Roof Damages

The Applicant has claimed damage to both the gabled and flat roofs. The Applicant states that the architect from The Elevated Studio “pointed out damage to the roof and other areas of the church that had been caused by Hurricane Ida.” Additionally, it points to an attestation on the invoices from its roofing contractor that “all roof repairs below are necessary due to damage caused by hurricane Ida.” However, the Applicant has not documented claimed damages to either roof or demonstrated that claimed damages were caused directly by the declared disaster.

For the gabled roof, the Applicant’s insurance report stated that the gabled roof above the upper-level area of the Facility was in a deteriorated condition; and on first appeal, FEMA reviewed pre-disaster aerial photographs and found evidence of damage and missing shingles for the gabled roof. On second appeal, the Applicant has not provided documentation regarding damages it claims were caused by the disaster. 

Additionally, the Applicant has requested full replacement of the flat roof but has not demonstrated that this work is required due to damage from the disaster. The Applicant provided evidence of the predisaster condition of the flat roof, including evidence that the roof was recently repaired prior to the incident. The Applicant also provided post-disaster photographs of the flat roof and various statements summarizing The Elevated Studio’s opinions on the cause of damage and the work required to address it. The Applicant claimed that The Elevated Studio recommended that it “repair and replace all damaged finish roof material and accessories throughout the structure. This includes shingles and membrane roofing and their respective accessories.”[13] However, the Applicant has not provided supporting documentation substantiating this recommendation, for example a technical report from the architect, specifying what roof material, if any, was damaged as a result of the disaster. 

Here, the Applicant has not demonstrated disaster-related damage to the Facility’s roofs that requires repair or replacement. Due to the lack of documentation to support the eligibility of roof repairs, the roof-related work that the Applicant is claiming on appeal is ineligible for PA funding.

Interior and Content Damages

The Applicant claims that ground-level flooding and wind-driven rain that entered the Facility caused a mold outbreak that damaged interior fixtures and furnishings. It provided photographs showing stained ceiling tiles, missing ceiling tiles, and brown water stains on walls. There are also pictures showing moldy carpets and volunteers removing damaged contents (furniture and other items) that had been on the floor of the Facility. However, based on the above, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the declared disaster caused damages to the roof or exterior masonry which resulted in water intrusion. It has also not distinguished between contents that were damaged by ground-level flooding and wind-driven rain entering the Facility. Therefore, the associated interior damages are also ineligible.[14] 

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to repair the Facility is required as a result of the declared incident. Therefore, the requested work is ineligible for PA funding and this appeal is denied.