ACV roof endorsements jump 6x in a decade as carriers quietly rewrite homeowners insurance, ZestyAI analysis finds

• Among the top 10 US homeowners carriers, ACV roof settlement schedules grew from 10% adoption in 2015 to 60% in 2025; percentage deductibles increased from 60% to 90% of policies over the same period
• Cosmetic damage and anti-matching provisions among the top 10 carriers accelerated from 20% adoption in 2015 to 90% in 2025
• Across all ~60 carriers reviewed in catastrophe-exposed states, 93% now use percentage deductibles, 75% use ACV roof settlement schedules, and 49% include cosmetic damage exclusions
• A single roof claim today routinely faces four or more stacked coverage restrictions from one loss event

New analysis by ZestyAI of more than 2,000 homeowners insurance regulatory filings reveals a decade-long, industry-wide rewrite of the homeowners contract - one that has left the modern homeowners policy structurally different from the one sold even a few years ago.

While rising catastrophe losses, rate pressure, and tighter underwriting continue to dominate industry discussion, the analysis identified a more consequential shift: carriers are increasingly competing not on headline price, but on how policies present at claim time.

Among the top 10 US carriers, adoption of Actual Cash Value (ACV) roof settlement schedules has jumped six-fold, from 10% of policies in 2015 to 60% in 2025, while percentage-based deductibles spread from 60% to 90% of policies over the same period. Cosmetic damage and anti-matching provisions, once rare, have accelerated even faster: from 20% adoption in 2015 to 90% in 2025.

Using its regulatory intelligence platform ZORRO Discover™, ZestyAI analyzed more than 2,000 homeowners insurance filings across approximately 60 carriers operating in catastrophe-exposed states including Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, and North Carolina. The data shows that coverage restrictions, once isolated endorsements or niche products, have become foundational elements of the modern homeowners insurance contract.

Across all carriers reviewed, the analysis found that:

• 93% use percentage-based deductibles
• 78% apply age-based coverage triggers
• 75% use Actual Cash Value (ACV) roof settlement schedules
• 49% include cosmetic damage exclusions
• 30% require mandatory inspections as a condition of coverage
• 17% include anti-matching language

The research shows that carriers facing similar catastrophe pressures are not converging on a single product design. Instead, they are assembling similar coverage controls in different combinations depending on geographic concentration, operating model, and risk appetite.

Texas showed 100% adoption of percentage deductibles among reviewed carriers, while Oklahoma reached approximately 95%. ACV roof settlement schedules were most prevalent in Oklahoma (85%) and Texas (82%), while cosmetic damage exclusions appeared in 57% of reviewed Texas filings and 50% in Colorado.

The analysis also found that coverage restrictions are increasingly layered together rather than introduced individually. In many filings, a single roof claim is simultaneously subject to a percentage deductible, an ACV settlement schedule, an age-based payout trigger, and a cosmetic damage exclusion - creating up to four constraints on recovery from one loss event.

Despite the spread of these restrictions, the analysis found that policyholder dissatisfaction has not yet materially increased. Across the filings examined, coverage restrictions showed a negative correlation with complaint volume - potentially reflecting the fact that these controls can help moderate premium increases at the time of bind. As a result, many policyholders may focus more on their immediate rate than changes to policy language, with the financial impact of coverage restrictions often becoming visible only when a claim occurs.

Stephanie Kuczynski, Director of Risk Analytics at ZestyAI, said:

“Two policies can look nearly identical at bind and behave very differently at claim time. The difference is that one may achieve a lower premium by layering restrictions that shift more risk back to the policyholder. Consumers naturally focus on the price they pay today, while the cumulative impact of a percentage deductible, an ACV roof settlement schedule, an age-based trigger, and a cosmetic exclusion often doesn't become clear until a loss occurs. That's why a decade-long trend like ACV adoption jumping six-fold matters: the economics of a roof claim under those policies can look fundamentally different.”