قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Matching Considerations in Iowa Law Insurance Blog About Property Insurance

Matching Considerations in Iowa Law Insurance Blog About Property Insurance



It is not uncommon for hail or windstorms to cause damage to only one or two sides of a structure, leaving the remaining sides undamaged. Many policyholders expect replacement materials to match in color and quality, when their insurance company suggests that they are only liable for the damaged material regardless of the changed appearance of the faulty building. damaged materials are no longer available, resulting in an obvious aesthetic difference between the undamaged and repaired areas of the structure. back to the position it was before the loss. While several states have dealt with matching through the court system, a number of states across the country have adopted statutes stemming from a regulation proposed by the National Association of Insurance Commissions that encourages matching of undamaged material to achieve a reasonably uniform appearance of property insured by a replacement. cost value policy. 2

Iowa has followed by administrative code rule 1

91-15.44, which provides:

15.44 (1) Reimbursement cost. When the policy prescribes adjustment and regulation of first-party losses based on compensation costs, the following applies:

* * * * *

b. When a loss requires replacement of items and the replaced items do not match the quality, color or size, the insurer shall reimburse as much of the item as is necessary to result in a reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight. This sub-rule applies to losses indoors and outdoors. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis. The insured shall not bear any cost of the applicable deductible, if any.

Although Iowa has clearly recognized the importance of matching undamaged material with undamaged material, it is often a matter of matching undamaged property covered by a subjective exercise to determine what constitutes a "reasonably uniform appearance." This requires the policyholder to provide evidence beyond his or her own opinion that the proposed repair will not achieve a reasonably uniform appearance within the same field of vision.
_______________________________________________________
1 Windridge and Naperville Condo. Ass & # 39; n v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. 2019 WL 3720876 (7th circ. 7 August 2019).
2 Connecticut; Utah; Ohio; Florida.


Source link