قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Connecticut's Matching Charter | Legal insurance blog for property insurance

Connecticut's Matching Charter | Legal insurance blog for property insurance



Matching can be one of the more difficult and controversial issues in the real estate insurance world. Some jurisdictions address the issue through laws and regulations that require the replacement of undamaged items when the damaged items cannot be replaced in a manner that provides a reasonably uniform appearance. Other jurisdictions address the issue through case law.

In Connecticut there is a charter, Director General State. § 38a-316e, which prescribes:

Matching of adjacent objects during fixed loss.

When a covered loss for immovable property requires the replacement of one or more objects and the replacement article or objects do not match adjacent objects In quality, color or size, the insurer shall replace all such objects with materials of the same type and quality to conform to a reasonable uniform appearance. This provision shall apply to internal and external covered losses.

Last year, the Supreme Court of Connecticut discussed the application of the state matching ordinance in Kamansky v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. CV-1

8-6094809S, 2019 WL 2374343 (Conn. Super. Ct. 30 April 2019). In that case, a car crash damaged the side tracks of the policyholder's home. The policyholder submitted a claim to his insurance company and claimed that according to § 38-316e the original outer edge had disappeared and full compensation was required. The insurance company denied coverage under the policy and relied on an exemption for wear, tear and deterioration. The court, which narrowly interpreted the word "adjacent", ruled that the carrier did not have to replace all siding, as there were undamaged siding that was not "adjacent" to the damaged siding. specific jurisdiction and the terms of applicable policy. Merlin Law Group has written extensively on the subject of matching. Be sure to check out these blog posts:

Is the assessment appropriate to determine if the policyholder is eligible to match shingles or a new roof replacement?

Matching questions and new claims Create insurance coverage

The assessor's introduction of "Matching" evidence after the proposed appraisal price is unclear

Matching considerations in Utah

The Seventh Circuit Court considers "Matching"

highlighted as modifying policy to exclude coverage for undamaged material

Matching in Ohio

Matching in West Virginia

Is a "matching" dispute suitable for assessment? – Update

Roof Matching in Montana

Matching Protection for Hurricane Irma Claims in Florida

Is a "Matching" Dispute Suitable for Assessment? ?

Important decision in favor of policyholders on matching matters


Source link