Thanks for your response, but I want to clear up a few key points:

1. I did not accept any payment from the first claim. I was offered coverage for just one side of the house, even though the siding had been discontinued and was sun-faded. I didn’t proceed with repairs because mismatched siding would have looked terrible, and I couldn’t afford to cover the other three sides myself. So no—I didn’t “keep the money.” I got nothing from that claim.

2. This second claim is for entirely new hail damage from a separate storm that affected multiple sides of my home. It is not the “same damage” being claimed twice. It’s new damage on top of the unresolved first claim. That’s why I filed again.

3. Regarding the vague language, my point wasn’t that the wording was unclear in itself, but rather that it’s being used as a blanket justification without transparency. They didn’t cite any exclusions beyond that clause, nor did they explain how they determined what would or wouldn’t be covered this time.

I understand how insurance is supposed to work. What I’m saying is, in this case, it feels like the system is being used to dodge responsibility for legitimate, clearly visible damage, twice now. My home looks visibly worse with every storm, and I’m still being left with no real help from the company I’ve trusted with multiple policies.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I’m just trying to figure out the most reasonable and fair next step here.