Case Study
When New Damage Appears Years After a Loss: How Claims Professionals Can Evaluate Causation
The Problem
The subject property was a luxury residence in Beverly Hills.
In May 2023, a fire reportedly triggered the sprinkler system, and water traveled through portions of the home. The insured later alleged that the natural stone flooring and wall installations sustained damage from that water exposure.
CTASC first inspected the property in July 2023.
At that time, sounding identified a mixture of solid and hollow responses, but the investigation did not identify newly formed cracked tiles, loose units, or other clear
resultant damage from the fire or water event.
The Solution
Property claims do not always end when the building dries out.
Sometimes new cracks, discoloration, movement, or other conditions appear months or even years later. When that happens, one question becomes unavoidable:
Is this delayed damage from the original loss—or an unrelated condition that simply developed afterward?
A recent CTASC matter involving natural stone flooring demonstrates how field data,installation details, and damage patterns can help answer that question.
Two Years Later, Additional Cracks Were Reported
CTASC returned in July 2025 because the insured reported that new cracking had occurred since the first inspection.
The re-inspection documented two areas where cracks had not previously been observed.
That alone could raise concern for a claims professional. But determining causation required looking beyond the date the cracks appeared.
Moisture Data Did Not Support an Ongoing Water Condition
Moisture readings were taken in several areas of the residence, including the entry, kitchen, family room, hallway, bathrooms, and exterior decks.
The interior readings were low and comparable to those obtained during the earlier investigation. The report concluded that there was no moisture concern in those areas.
The photographed readings on pages 5 through 8 of the inspection report similarly document low or normal comparative readings at the bathroom, hallway transition,
exterior deck, and lower-level bathroom.
This evidence made an ongoing water-related mechanism less persuasive.
The Sounding Results Told a Different Story
The main-level flooring produced a very different type of finding.
Of more than 50 stone tiles sounded, more than two-thirds produced hollow responses.
CTASC explained that these areas may reflect insufficient bond or mortar coverage, possible voids, or potentially a spot-bond installation method.
Large-format stone depends heavily on continuous support.
Where voids exist beneath the surface, concentrated loads and building movement can place stress on unsupported portions of the stone, increasing the likelihood of cracks.
This provides a plausible alternative mechanism that does not depend on the water loss.
Crack Location Matters
The geometry of the cracks was also revealing.
Several cracks appeared around L-cuts, penetrations, and inside corners. These are naturally vulnerable locations because the stone becomes narrower and weaker around
the cut.
CTASC noted that inadequate mortar coverage or substrate flatness can further increase stress in these areas.
One new crack was identified near a wall corner at an L-cut, while other previously documented cracks were visible around similar penetrations. The recurring pattern supported an installation- and stress-related explanation.
Movement Conditions Were Visible at the Surface
Around the fireplace and other transitions, CTASC documented separation and raised or tented joints.
The inspection report associated these conditions with structural movement and inadequate movement accommodation. Flexible perimeter and transition joints are designed to absorb expansion and contraction that naturally occur as buildings move over time.
The photos on pages 11 and 12 show the nearly level floor surface alongside visible separation and tenting at these transitions, which CTASC interpreted as evidence of
movement rather than water-related distress.
Installation Photos Added Another Piece to the Puzzle
The later 2026 document review gave CTASC access to additional installation photographs
and plan details.
The floor photographs showed the limestone thin-set directly to the concrete substrate, with no apparent crack-isolation membrane.
CTASC explained that in the absence of such a membrane, cracks or movement in the underlying substrate can reflect upward into the stone surface.
This supported the conclusion that the newly observed cracking was more consistent with structural or reflective stress than with the earlier sprinkler discharge.
The Walls Told a Similar Story From the Opposite Direction
The wall installation was also reviewed.
Plan documents called for stainless-steel brackets and waterproofing. Installation photos appeared to confirm that those details had been followed, and CTASC reported no
evidence of rusting, moisture damage, or compromised anchors.
That evidence helped rule out a separate theory that the water event had compromised the vertically anchored natural stone.
Why This Matters for Claims Handling
Delayed claims can be difficult because the longer the time between the loss and the reported condition, the more potential causes may exist.
A sound technical investigation should evaluate:
- What changed?
- Where did it change?
- Does the damage pattern fit the alleged mechanism?
- Do measurable conditions support that theory?
- Were there pre-existing vulnerabilities that offer a better explanation?
Those questions can help distinguish true resultant damage from deterioration, movement, or installation-related conditions that happen to appear later.
Final Technical Conclusion
After the original inspection, re-inspection, moisture testing, crack-pattern evaluation, sounding, and later review of construction documents, CTASC reaffirmed its earlier position.
The report found no clear resultant damage to the natural stone flooring attributable to the reported water-loss event. The additional cracking was instead considered consistent with expansion and contraction, lack of movement or perimeter joints, surface stress, existing
voids, and reflective cracking associated with the installation.
How CTASC Helps Insurance Professionals
CTASC provides forensic failure investigations, insurance-claim investigations, expert witness services, testing, and quality-control consulting involving tile and stone
installations.
For carriers and claims professionals, the value of specialized forensic evaluation is not simply determining whether damage exists. It is determining whether the claimed event actually caused it, what evidence supports that conclusion, and how the finding should affect the scope of the claim.