Minnesota Siding Match Law

Sometime insurance companies insist on only replacing a portion of a roof or siding particularly the area that has direct physical damage this may be one slope of a roof or one side of a house.

Minnesota siding match law.

The minnesota supreme court determined that the policy s provision for replacements of comparable material and quality required a reasonable color match between new and existing siding. The match law issue in minnesota arose out of a 1999 district court case brought by then attorney general mike hatch against american family mutual insurance company. And because just the hail damaged panels could not be replaced without creating a color mismatch the buildings had sustained a distinct. Shingles siding carpet cabinets etc whether and when a carrier must replace non damaged portions of a building in order for there to be a perfect match remains a point of contention.

Sometime protection companies insist on only changing a portion of a roof or siding particularly the area that has direct physical damage this may be one slope of a roof or one side of a house. A good illustration of the matching uniformity problem is found in a 2014 minnesota federal district court case in which a manufacturer discontinued the shingles used on the insured s roof thus. But there are two court cases from minnesota courts which essentially find that insurance companies must indeed replace all siding or shingles even if a house was only partially damaged. Is there a minnesota law requiring insurance companies to match your shingles or siding in an insurance claim.

Is there a minnesota law requiring insurance companies to match existing material. 15 44 1 can be read below the key provision is the reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight term. It is a matter of great importance to insurance companies because matching problems with a slightly damaged section of roof or flooring can lead. If the siding does not match and that can clearly be seen from a visual point then the carrier must match the siding.

Matching issues are frequently problematic when storms damage only portions of an insured structure s exterior and it proves impossible to replace the damaged sections with material that is an exact match for the rest of the building s roof or siding. Moreover some matching regulations only apply to rcv policies. That case directly addressed american family insurance s failure to provide match replacement for homeowners roofing and siding storm loss claims. Earlier this month the minnesota supreme court held that the phrase comparable.

There is not really a law in the sense that there is a state statute which requires an insurance company to replace all shingles or siding on a house.