Coverage for Matching: What is a Carrier Required to Pay

Sep 20, 2013 By Corey Harris Insurance

Earlier this week I met with an association board of directors about their ongoing hail claim. While the association is sorting through a number of issues, one of the larger disputes centers around the siding installed on each of the buildings.

Whether a change in the profile and thickness of a certain type of siding or a discontinued color of roofing tile, policyholders are often faced with a situation where they cannot find replacement materials of like kind and quality after a loss has occurred. Policyholders are left in a situation where they must replace a undamaged portions of the building or simply live with a building that does not match as it did before the loss occurred.

While many insurance carriers will pay for the increased costs associated with bringing the property back to its previous uniformity, some dispute that coverage exists without a specific endorsement.

The Ohio Court of Appeals dealt with this particular issue and, like many other courts, found  coverage for matching and uniformity under the insured’s homeowners policy.

In Dolecki v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,1 the policyholder’s home was damaged by hail. The parties agreed that hail had damaged the aluminum siding on the west of the house but had not damaged the remaining three sides. Because the siding on the house had been discontinued, it was impossible to find replacement parts that would dimensionally match. When Nationwide refused to replace the undamaged siding, the Dolecki’s filed suit for breach of contract.

The trial court found in favor of the homeowner, stating the insurance policy required Nationwide to find an exact match for the damaged siding or pay to replace the siding on all sides of the home regardless of whether it was damaged. In doing so, the trial court found that it would be unreasonable to allow Nationwide to replace the damaged siding with a product that did not match the remainder of the house. On appeal, the appellate court agreed.

Matching under a property insurance contract varies by state and often depends on the specific facts and circumstances of the particular case. Courts often look to the reasonableness of the required work, the aesthetic damage that would be caused, and whether the policyholder had a reasonable expectation the contract would provide for replacement of the undamaged property.

1 Dolecki v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Not Reported in N.E. 2d, 2005 WL 578648, 2005 -Ohio- 1061 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. March 7, 2005).

Are you looking for help?

Let us help you. Call now: (877) 449-4700 | Monday – Friday, 9 AM – 5PM

Why choose Merlin Law Group?

Founded in 1985, our law firm continues to be dedicated to representing insurance policyholders throughout the United States. Collectively, our lawyers are licensed to practice in 25 states. In fact, many of Merlin Law Group’s attorneys worked for the insurance industry before joining the firm, so they bring a strong understanding of insurance company practices. Anyone can file a claim, but it takes experience, knowledge, and savvy to achieve a truly successful outcome. As The Policyholder’s Advocate®, Merlin Law Group aims to drive positive change within the insurance sector by obtaining justice for our clients and educating policyholders on how to navigate insurer bad faith tactics.

When we handle property insurance claim disputes, we hire the most experienced and qualified expert witnesses to evaluate your insurance claim and testify on your behalf. In most cases, we can advance the fees for this. Typically, we hire experts such as engineers, contractors, independent roofing consultants and other professionals to perform a thorough assessment on all possible causes of damages. This is a process that provides us with a very detailed and all-inclusive estimate for determining and justifying a proper settlement. Our use of these professional expert witnesses sets us apart from other insurance law firms.

Submit a free case review