Whether damaged property can be "matched" during a repair is a major problem for property insurance. There is a Louisiana appeal case that discusses the matching issue, 1 and it was found for the policyholder. An earlier post, Provide the right proof that your insurer pays costs to repair or replace to match texture, color and similarity should be studied as the outcome may depend on the policyholder's presentation of loss.  I made two suggestions that should still be followed when adjusting matching issues:
Read the policy to see if it has matching restrictions as we see more policies that exclude payment for costs associated with matching damaged parts of real estate or personal property. Coverage can be provided for "pairs" or "sets". Again, the policy is the first place to start any analysis of coverage.
Get so much evidence from experts that indicates that in order to repair the "damaged" property and not be worse than before, you need to match real estate. And you have to show that it is impossible to somehow "patch" the damaged area so that it matches. Get experts to support you on the claim and many insurance policyholders will pay.
The Louisiana Court of Appeal noted that the policyholder presented an expert opinion that the water-damaged carpets would not match if it were not replaced:
[P] the tenants' interior designers… testified that because the color and pattern of carpets originally used in homeowners, it was impossible to replace the damaged carpet without replacing carpets in the house's bedroom swing. Even if the same color and texture of carpets could be obtained, only replacing the damaged parts of the carpet would result in ugly seams at the time, according to Mr McKay, and the contrast between the old and the new carpet would be clear and would have a negative impact on the total market value of the house. McKay likened the replacement of the damaged carpet to replacing a sleeve in a suit with something other than the same material that the entire suit had originally been tailored to. He also testified that it was common practice in Baton Rouge in houses of the type of plaintiff to use one type of carpet and one color in all bedrooms, and that doing anything else would impair the value of the house. McKay further testified that he had been consulted by 50-100 homeowners in Baton Rouge who had received water damage to their carpets, and that he always recommended replacing the carpet throughout the bedroom wing, if the damage had been in any part of that area.
The policyholder also provided expert evidence that the value of the home would be reduced without matching the carpet:
W. W. Wilkinson, a qualified real estate agent, also testified that if carpets of the same texture and color are not used in the entire bedroom wing of houses like Holloway's house, it reduces the value of the house by $ 1000 to $ 2000.  The Louisiana court also quoted from Louisiana Valued Policy Charter as a General Order Supporting the Matching of Carpets:
Under each fire insurance, which may be written below … the State of Louisiana, the insurer shall pay to the insured, in the event of partial damage without criminal error from the insured or the insured's , such an amount, which does not exceed the amount for which the property is insured, at the time of such partial damage, according to the insurer's insurance, which will allow the insured to restore the damaged property to its original condition. . ..
Louisiana policyholder won. Although the case is an important precedent, I would suggest that the facts presented in the loss presentation and the applicable policy language will be the most important factors that determine whether future matching is guilty in Louisiana.
Thought For The Day
Beware, as long as you live, of judging men by their outward appearance.
—Jean de La Fontaine
1 Holloway v Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 290 So.2d 791 (La. App. 1974).