Eighth Circuit in Noonan v. American Family Mutual Insurance 1 recently confirmed that Minnesota Endorsement Homeowners Endorsement ("Endorsement") excludes "matching". Claims mean that an insurer does not "pay to repair or replace undamaged property due to mismatch between damaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material."
The Insurances in Noonan exhibited hail damage to their homes. The case was under consideration, where it was requested that the assessors distinguish their award into two categories – one to replace damaged shingles and another to replace undamaged shingles that would not match. The panel entered a total award and stated that "his
The American family issues the policy. However, the allegation stated that it concerned the "form", but it did not expressly state or stated that it concerned the policy of the insured. The court found that the endorsement was ambiguous and was granted judgment for the insured.
In appeal, eight circles turned the court's view that the endosement unambiguously applied the policy. Eight Circuit looked at the first page of the policy claiming that the endorsement was applied and a physical copy attached. And eight circles noted that the failure of the endorsement to refer to the policy was deliberate as the American family claimed. Instead of changing a policy provision, the endorsement was a separate, independent part of the policy. The endosement included a topic (matching), which the policy did not. Eight circles concluded that the endorsement is explicitly and unequivocally applied, and the US family was not required to pay for damages related to matching difficulties.
Noonan v. American Family Mut. Ins. No. 18-1393, 2019 WL 2236092 (May 8, May 24, 2019).