1. Repair or replace any part to restore the pair or set to its value before the loss; or 

2. Pay the difference between actual cash value of the property before and after the loss

The conditions apply to the policy as a whole, as they are part of the general Section I - Conditions. This section also includes Duties After a Loss, Deductible, Loss Settlement, Appraisal, and other provisions. Nothing indicates that Pair or Set applies only to Coverage C; the provisions speak only to loss to a pair or set of property. But what constitutes a pair or a set? With bookcases and candlesticks it’s obvious; with other components, it may not be.

Pair or set are not defined terms. When policy terms aren’t defined, courts will turn to a standard desk reference since that is accessible to most people. Merriam-Webster Online defines the terms as follows:

Pair - (1) two corresponding things designed for use together;

(a pair of shoes)

(2): two corresponding bodily parts or members

(a pair of hands)

b: something made up of two corresponding pieces

(a pair of trousers)

Set - 2. a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together.

Now that we’ve defined the terms, let’s go back to the policy language. The clause is easily applied to personal property. Earrings, bookcases, candlesticks, silverware, anything the insured has that matches, and would look odd if a damaged item were replaced with something different or a piece that didn’t match were added in, such as silverware.

Again, nothing in the HO 00 03 form restricts the clause to Coverage C - Personal Property. So what parts of the dwelling could be considered a set? Shutters make sense, as they need to match and are on each side of a window. So do kitchen cabinets; again, if one is damaged and replaced with something different that doesn’t match the others, it looks off. An argument might also be made for windows, as if the original style of window is no longer available, the dwelling might look strange with mismatched windows. However, many dwellings have windows of different sizes - therefore, not all windows in a dwelling might be considered part of a set of windows. There could be bay windows in the study, for example, and double hung windows elsewhere. There could be some clerestory windows in the living room and bedrooms. The principle of indemnity, that the insured should be restored to their preloss condition, always applies.

However, the clause does have an out for things that cannot be matched - that it is the option of the insurer to pay the difference between the actual cash value of the property before and after the loss. Now, determining the value of non-matching property after a loss is yet another challenge. Is the value of the kitchen cabinets that don’t match reduced to nothing, or is there some value in them? The value of a set of cabinets that no longer match and have no matching components available would be small. If matching is not available, then the insured would logically be entitled to the difference in the actual cash value of the entire set of cabinets before and after the loss.

And here we’ve brought up a key word - matching. Matching and whether or not insurers are obligated to replace undamaged property in order to restore the insured to preloss condition is a huge issue, since states approach it differently with a variety of bulletins and regulations, as can be seen here. It’s also a separate issue from the Pair or Set clause.

In Magnolia Lane Condo. Ass'n v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112131, the condominium buildings owned by Magnolia were damaged by Hurricane Irma. Magnolia filed a claim with its insurer for damages to the roof and windows of several buildings, as well as a club house and pool cabana building. The insurer and insured could not come to terms as to the settlement amount, and the parties attended mediation. Magnolia objected to the calculations used to determine a settlement figure, claiming they didn’t account for matching costs in the calculation. The insurer claimed that the policy does not pay for matching expenses, only for what was actually damaged.

When the policy language was reviewed, while standard pair and set language was present, the policy also specifically stated that the availability of replacements was not guaranteed and that the insurer would not be liable in full or in part to replace the entire series of pieces or panels. The court agreed with the insurer that the plain reading of the policy language indicated that there was no coverage for the replacement of any undamaged property. The court also pointed out that the policy wording was a set of options, not requirements, for the insurer based on the following wording: “In case of loss to a pair, set or panels, we may elect to:” The court therefore recommended denial of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of matching be denied, and the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment be granted.

In this case, the policy language for the pair and set clause specifically excluded matching of undamaged property of pieces or panels. The case became more one of matching rather than pair and set - while the windows could be construed as a set, generally, roof shingles or tiles are not considered to be a set. Plenty of newer roofs are regularly repaired from damage as long as the shingles haven’t been discontinued.

Jaskierny v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19139 (E.D. La. 1996) involved a flood policy and damage to the lower kitchen cabinets. When the insured wanted coverage for restaining the top cabinets to match the repaired lower cabinets, the insurer refused, as the top cabinets had not been damaged. The policy contained the following language:

“If you lose an article which is part of a pair or set, we will have the option of paying you an amount equal to the cost of replacing the lost article, less depreciation, or an amount which represents the fair proportion of the total value of the pair or set that the lost article bears to the pair or set.”

The court relied on this language to find that the insurer had satisfied its obligation under the policy and that the insurer did not have to replace or restain the top cabinets. The court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and denied the insureds’ motion for summary judgment.

Again, what started out as a pair or set issue turned into one of matching. But the Pair or Set clause is specific to items that are a pair or set; matching comes up frequently with property that isn’t a pair or set, and states have various regulations or department bulletins addressing matching. Likewise, the exact policy language is key as it may give the insurer a way to limit coverage. As always, the policy language must be read carefully, and the property involved in the claim needs to be properly assessed.

For information on the issue of matching, information can be found here:

The Issue of Matching

Matching by State - Cases, Regulations, and Department Bulletins