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
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