Committee hears concerns about water intrusion through sliding glass doors; regulators say more experiential data needed before crediting mitigation

Several senators raised water intrusion through sliding glass doors as a distinct and growing source of insured loss, especially in mid- and high-rise condominium buildings. They cited recent storm events in which water entry through openings caused substantial claim costs and asked whether mitigation credits or code changes should address the issue.

Office of Insurance Regulation and IBHS representatives responded that while laboratory work — including wall-of-wind testing — can inform product evaluation, regulators need experiential, post‑event field data and actuarial evidence before creating a mitigation credit. Commissioner Mike Yowarski said the office is examining the issue and that credits must be actuarially sound so the broader insurance pool is not subsidizing mismeasured discounts. “When it comes to mitigation credits…you have to get it right,” he said.

Michael Newman of IBHS and other presenters described sliding or large glazed door assemblies as inherently weaker points of the building envelope and said manufacturers’ warranties commonly exclude water intrusion. Newman said the verification process (for example, Fortified designation) matters because insurers need independent documentation that mitigation actually occurred. Kevin Guthrie added that real-world performance and experiential data are crucial to set policy and credits.

Why it matters: Committee members cited major condominium claims tied to water intrusion and asked whether the building code’s exceptions and current inspection forms adequately address the risk. Regulators said they have begun reviewing the problem but cautioned against adopting credits based on single-study evidence.

Key details and clarifications - Evidence standard: OIR said a single vendor or lab study is insufficient; the office seeks experiential data across multiple events and deployments before assigning actuarial credits. - Building-code exceptions: Senators noted Florida Building Code exceptions and FEMA guidance that can limit water‑penetration testing in some assemblies; presenters said these exceptions require further technical review. - Manufacturer exclusions: Committee members and presenters noted some window and door manufacturers exclude water intrusion from warranties, complicating retrofit risk transfer.

Discussion and next steps Senators asked the committee staff and agencies to schedule follow-up briefings and invited additional technical witnesses (manufacturers, FIU/Wall of Wind, insurers) for a deeper examination of water-intrusion mitigation standards and whether the 18‑02 form or grant programs should explicitly capture these measures.

Ending Regulators and researchers agreed that preventing water intrusion is an important priority, but they recommended collecting broader field data, verification protocols and actuarial analysis before adopting mitigation credits or sweeping code changes.