Legal Cases

There are a number of court cases addressing this issue. Even courts vary in their opinions on the issue; in large part, the courts rely on the specific policy language in question.

In Godwin v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 518 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022), Godwin’s roof lost several shingles in a windstorm. The roofer she hired to make repairs noted that the damage was to the front and ridge of the roof, and that the remaining shingles were at the end of their life and needed to be replaced. State Farm agreed to replace all the damaged shingles on the front slope, but not the undamaged shingles on the back slope. Godwin filed suit. The trial court granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, and Godwin appealed. Godwin’s position was that the policy provision requiring repairs to be done with materials of similar construction obligated State Farm to replace her entire roof to provide a uniform appearance. Godwin argued that the policy language referring to “the damaged part of the property” should be interpreted to require installment of a new roof. The court was unconvinced and pointed out that the policy required replacement of “the damaged part of the property.”

Godwin then focused on the language requiring payment for the cost “to repair or replace with similar construction” to mean that, since the new shingles did not match the old, she was entitled to a new roof. Again, the court was unconvinced. It found this argument inconsistent with other policy provisions that excluded loss caused by “wear and tear, marring, scratching, [or] deterioration.” While Godwin presented multiple cases, the court found them all unconvincing, concluding that the policy did not require State Farm to pay for repairs to undamaged portions of the roof in order to achieve aesthetic uniformity; the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

In Hanks v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. 163802 (D. Ariz. 2013), the federal district court for the District of Arizona came to a similar conclusion. However, the insured’s policy included an endorsement that clearly excluded coverage for the replacement of undamaged property. The insured’s property was damaged in a severe wind and hailstorm, and a claim was filed. The insurer agreed to replace the damaged tiles, but a third party hired by the insured determined that the broken tiles were no longer manufactured and were not available. The third party believed the entire roof should be replaced. The insurer denied coverage for the full replacement, and the insured filed suit for partial summary judgment, arguing that Arizona’s “reasonable expectations” doctrine precluded the insurer from excluding replacement of undamaged siding. The insurer explained that the endorsement excluding coverage for undamaged property had been added to the insured’s policy in 2010 and claimed the language of the endorsement was reasonably clear and easy to understand. The insured claimed she was never advised of the policy change and that the language of the endorsement could not be understood by a reasonably intelligent consumer. The insurer provided an affidavit that all insureds had received notice of the policy change. The court concluded that a reasonable person could understand the language of the endorsement and denied partial summary judgment for Hanks.

However, in Windridge of Naperville Condo. Ass’n v. Phila. Indemn. Ins. Co. 2018 U.S. Dist. 62690 (N.D. Ill. 2018), the judges for the Northern District of Illinois took the opposite position. A condominium building sustained damage on its south and west sides but not the north and east sides. The insurer said it only had to replace the damaged siding, while the condo association claimed that, because replacement siding that matched the undamaged siding was no longer available, all of the siding should be replaced so the exterior of the building matched. The insurer maintained that it was required to pay for direct physical loss to covered property, so it only needed to replace the damaged siding. The court granted Windridge’s summary motion in part and denied it in part. If no siding was available that matched the undamaged siding on the building, the insurer must replace the siding on all four sides of the building. Whether such siding was available and whether the insurer must replace the two damaged sides or all four sides of the building was submitted to appraisal for determination. This decision was later affirmed by the judges of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (932 F.3d 1035, 7th Cir. 2019).

In Mastin v. Sandy & Beaver Ins. Co., 461 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Cty. Ct. 1983), an insured filed suit against his carrier to recover the cost to replace the kitchen floor. The insured's property was damaged by a storm, and the kitchen floor had to be cut through in order to make repairs. The insured had a vinyl kitchen floor, which could not satisfactorily be repaired by a patch. The court ruled that vinyl flooring cannot be considered “repaired” when an obvious patch is left and that the insured’s whole kitchen floor needed to be replaced.

In Greene v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 936 A.2d 1178 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007), part of the insureds roof was damaged, and matching shingles could not be obtained. The insureds wanted the entire roof replaced, while the carrier repaired only the damaged areas based on the “replacement of that part of the building damaged” policy language. The court reviewed the problematic policy language and found it was unambiguous; and that the carrier owed only to repair the damaged part of the roof, and not replace the roof.

Couch on Insurance 176:65 points out that not all versions of the replacement-cost provision invoke requirements that the new property be identical or even similar to what was damaged. Couch states that when similarity is required, all that is necessary is functional similarity to replace old property with new property.

As can be seen by these cases, there is no consensus in the courts as to whether insurers should make all repairs match the existing undamaged property or not. Again, policy language makes a difference. Insurers with policies that clearly state that repairs will be the closest available and that property will not be restored to matching will prevail in court.

Statutory Positions

A total of thirteen states have statutory provisions dictating settlement when replacement property does not match undamaged property. Some states require a “reasonably comparable appearance”, but that term is not defined. Other states are very specific in the efforts required by an insurer to match existing undamaged property. Considerations include the ability to move siding from one portion of the house to another, replacement of all siding, and allowances to reflect diminution in value caused by the mismatch. Yet other states specifically say that if materials cannot be replaced with materials that are similar in kind, quality, texture, or color, that the existing materials must be replaced to achieve a match.

So there you have it. Courts, carriers, and insureds disagree on the topic of matching. Some courts and insureds believe that the insured is entitled to be restored to pre-loss conditions, with roofing, carpets, or siding that actually matches. Other courts and carriers feel that only the damaged property needs to be replaced, and a repair that leaves the insured with mismatched carpet or roofing is acceptable. Policy language is critical, and there are now policies that clearly state that repairs will be as close as possible, but that the insurer does not have to replace undamaged property in order to leave the insured with property that matches. Certain states have statutes that dictate how such claims should be handled. While there is no industry consensus, one thing is clear. When property has been damaged and no matching components are available, the adjuster has to carefully review the policy as well as any state statutes in order to know how to proceed.