Minnesota Siding Match Law

The match law issue in minnesota arose out of a 1999 district court case brought by then attorney general mike hatch against american family mutual insurance company.

Minnesota siding match law.

Sometime insurance companies insist on only replacing a portion of a roof or siding particularly the area that has direct physical damage this may be one slope of a roof or one side of a house. There is not really a law in the sense that there is a state statute which requires an insurance company to replace all shingles or siding on a house. Is there a minnesota law requiring insurance companies to match your shingles or siding in an insurance claim. Shingles siding carpet cabinets etc whether and when a carrier must replace non damaged portions of a building in order for there to be a perfect match remains a point of contention.

Is there a minnesota law requiring insurance companies to match existing material. That case directly addressed american family insurance s failure to provide match replacement for homeowners roofing and siding storm loss claims. A good illustration of the matching uniformity problem is found in a 2014 minnesota federal district court case in which a manufacturer discontinued the shingles used on the insured s roof thus leading to a mismatch problem. Earlier this month the minnesota supreme court held that the phrase comparable.

Matching issues are frequently problematic when storms damage only portions of an insured structure s exterior and it proves impossible to replace the damaged sections with material that is an exact match for the rest of the building s roof or siding. And because just the hail damaged panels could not be replaced without creating a color mismatch the buildings had sustained a distinct. Sometime protection companies insist on only changing a portion of a roof or siding particularly the area that has direct physical damage this may be one slope of a roof or one side of a house. Moreover some matching regulations only apply to rcv policies.

15 44 1 can be read below the key provision is the reasonably uniform appearance within the same line of sight term. But there are two court cases from minnesota courts which essentially find that insurance companies must indeed replace all siding or shingles even if a house was only partially damaged. A good illustration of the matching uniformity problem is found in a 2014 minnesota federal district court case in which a manufacturer discontinued the shingles used on the insured s roof thus. It is a matter of great importance to insurance companies because matching problems with a slightly damaged section of roof or flooring can lead.

So if you stand at the corner of the house and.