This document is the manufacturer rejecting or limiting spot repair as a method. Two refinements. (1) The source is Ludowici's warranty web page, not a separate 'Warranty Program document' — cite it as the warranty page at https://ludowici.com/ludowici-difference/warranty/. (2) The immediately preceding sentence is stronger and should be captured too: Ludowici 'reserves the right to discontinue or modify any of its products, including the color thereof, without notice to the customer and shall not be liable ... if replacement material varies in color intensity and/or hue and/or shade in comparison to the original product.'
Repair method Ludowici Roof Tile · Roofing · 11 pages
All Ludowici clay tile — 75-year Material Warranty (Warranty Program document)
In their own words
If Ludowici replaces any material under this warranty, it may substitute products designated by Ludowici to be of comparable quality if the product initially installed has been discontinued or modified.
Ludowici Roof Tile — All Ludowici clay tile — 75-year Material Warranty (Warranty Program document)
That sentence is not our characterisation of the manufacturer’s position. It is the manufacturer’s position, in the document below, which you can read yourself in about a minute.
Get the document
All Ludowici clay tile — 75-year Material Warranty (Warranty Program document)
Issued by Ludowici Roof Tile. Published here complete — no summary standing in for the document, no email required.
Issued by Ludowici Roof Tile. Retrieved from ludowici.com, August 2026, and hosted here so it stays available in the version quoted above.
What to do with it
Adjusters write "repairable" as though it were a finding. It is a conclusion, and this document is the manufacturer disagreeing with it. Building codes require installation to follow the manufacturer's instructions, which turns a technical bulletin into a compliance argument.
- You have the manufacturer’s document. That part is finished. Most homeowners never get this far, and it is the step a carrier cannot argue with — it is not your opinion, it is the company that made the product.
- Put it in writing, to the adjuster, with the claim number. Attach the document and ask one specific question: name the exact replacement product — manufacturer, line, colour, dimensions, exposure, nail zone, sealant design, supplier, quantity available locally — and who will answer for the repair if it fails. Vague answers are the whole game; a specific question ends it.
- Get the position on the record before anything gets installed. Once a mismatched or incompatible repair is on the building, you are arguing about something already done.
If you want the second and third steps handled by someone who does this for a living, that is what we are for — and the review costs nothing. If you would rather do it yourself, the document above is yours either way. That is the point of publishing it.
Related documents
Other manufacturers saying the same thing
Atlas Chalet
The strongest document in this library. A carrier proposed fixing a Chalet roof by swapping in “comparable” shingles, or by cannibalising shingles from less visible slopes. Atlas’s Consumer Services Manager answered in writing — and the answer is no.
CertainTeed roof repair guidelines
CertainTeed’s own repair standard rejects reusing shingles and forbids intermixing metric and English (standard) sizes on one roof. Building codes require installation to follow the manufacturer’s instructions — which makes this document a code argument, not just a preference.
CertainTeed hail damage
CertainTeed’s technical position on what hail does to an asphalt shingle, and what its warranty does and does not cover afterwards.
GAF Timberline HDZ
The obvious workaround — trim a modern shingle down to the old dimensions — is one GAF specifically rejects, because cut shingles may not seal to one another.
The rule this document serves
Your policy promises repair or replacement with material of like kind and quality. That is a replacement-cost and indemnity obligation, not an appearance theory — and it is why “matching” is the carrier’s word, not the policy’s. Where the installed product cannot be bought, or cannot be combined with what is still sold, the covered building cannot be restored to like kind and quality by patching it, and that is true before anyone argues about how it looks. The full doctrine, and the other 125 documents, are on the discontinued materials hub.
You have the manufacturer's document. The next part is the argument. Handing a carrier a technical bulletin and getting it honoured are two different jobs. The case review is free, and you pay nothing unless we recover.
See if my case qualifies 770-230-2616